zabbix_get_script_execution_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only 'Get' operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, required permissions, return format, or how filtering affects results. Minimal additional value beyond the obvious.

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 one concise sentence that clearly states the action and object. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant information, earning its place.

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 no annotations, the description should explain what a successful response contains and any behavioral nuances (e.g., default sorting, limit behavior). It only states the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 6 optional parameters and no return structure documentation.

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 of the 6 parameters already well-described (e.g., 'limit', 'filter by specific host IDs'). The description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema sufficiently documents the semantics, so 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 uses specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'history of script executions', with source 'Zabbix events'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zabbix_get_scripts (list scripts) and zabbix_execute_script (execute scripts) by focusing on execution history.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zabbix_get_events or zabbix_get_history. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and generic description, with no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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