zabbix_get_maintenance

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, response format, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant information. It is well-structured, though its brevity sacrifices some substance. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it is appropriately sized given the schema's richness.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, default behavior, or how this tool fits into the maintenance lifecycle. A more complete description would mention typical use cases, relationship to create/update/delete maintenance tools, and what the user can expect in the response.

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 each parameter clearly explained in the input schema. The description's phrase 'with filtering and output options' loosely maps to filter/search/output parameters but adds no new semantic meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('maintenance periods from Zabbix'). The mention of 'filtering and output options' indicates flexibility, making it distinguishable from sibling maintenance mutation tools like zabbix_create_maintenance or zabbix_delete_maintenance.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, complementary tools, or situations where other tools (e.g., zabbix_get_problems) might be more appropriate. The description does not exclude any use case or cross-reference siblings.

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