zabbix_get_last_24_hours_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It explains the output content and aggregation nature (new problems, resolved issues, recent events, trends, net change) but omits any side effects or operational details such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has data granularity limitations. The 'Get' verb suggests a read operation, but no explicit safety assurances are provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by additional output details. Every phrase provides necessary information; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description enumerates the summary components, making it clear what the tool returns despite lacking an output schema. It is reasonably complete for a query tool with one optional parameter, though it could better distinguish from neighboring summary tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'options' object and 'severityFilter' array both documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function as generating a 24-hour activity summary with specific contents (new problems, resolved issues, recent events), distinguishing it from sibling tools like zabbix_get_problems or zabbix_get_events that return raw lists. The verb 'Get' and explicit time window make the scope precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are given; the description only implies use for a summary rather than raw problem/event listings. There is no direction on when to prefer this over zabbix_get_system_overview or similar, so guidance is inferred from the tool name and wording.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.