zabbix_get_performance_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'with context' but does not explain what that context includes, nor does it state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination or sorting is supported, or what the return structure looks like. The lack of clarity on side effects and output format is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences long, immediately states the primary action, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is a simple getter with optional nested filters, and the schema covers its parameters. However, the description lacks essential context such as whether the operation is read-only, what 'context' means in the response, and how this differs from closely related sibling tools like zabbix_get_problems or zabbix_get_alerts. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this description leaves noticeable gaps in the overall picture.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description briefly alludes to the filter parameters ('by resource type and severity'), which reinforces their purpose, but it does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It neither compensates for any gaps nor adds value.

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 retrieves performance alerts and resource-related issues with context, and mentions filtering by resource type and severity. This is specific enough to identify the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like zabbix_get_problems or zabbix_get_alerts, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The description gives a clear context for when to use the tool: when you need performance alerts or resource-related issues with context, potentially filtered by resource type and severity. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it provides no exclusions, landing at level 4.

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