zabbix_get_problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'retrieves' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, default filters, pagination behavior, or semantics of 'current'. This is insufficient for a tool with many parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It clearly states the verb and object first, then adds a brief qualifier. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 no output schema and high complexity (18 parameters), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a problem is relative to events, what the return format looks like, or what filtering options are available. The schema covers parameters but not operational context, so the description leaves significant gaps.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the generic phrase 'with filtering options', which does not add meaning beyond the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided in the description.

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 'current problems' from Zabbix, using the specific verb 'retrieves' and a defined resource. It distinguishes from siblings like zabbix_get_events or zabbix_get_triggers by focusing on problems, but does not elaborate on what 'current' means or how it differs from related data, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to fetch current problems with filtering, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like zabbix_get_events or zabbix_get_triggers. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case boundaries, so it only offers implied usage.

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