zabbix_get_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get scripts' and gives a vague mention of filtering/output, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, how pagination works, whether results are limited, or what the response structure includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 that avoids unnecessary verbosity. It front-loads the core action and resource, and the additional mention of 'filtering and output options' is useful without bloating the text. Every word earns 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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'script' in Zabbix, the nature of filtering (e.g., by host, group, script ID), the meaning of output options, or the structure of the response. The description provides almost no context beyond the schema's parameter definitions, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding of the tool's behavior.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 11 parameters and their meanings. The description adds the phrase 'with filtering and output options,' which broadly maps to parameters like filter, search, and output, but does not provide any semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. As coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get scripts from Zabbix' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (scripts), making the core purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that create, update, delete, or execute scripts, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or differentiate filtering scope from other get_* tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., 'for execution history, use get_script_execution_history') or provide context about intended use cases beyond the basic 'get scripts' statement, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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