zabbix_get_system_overview

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 discloses the tool's aggregating behavior and outputs high-level status, but it does not mention any side effects, performance implications, permission requirements, or return format. For a read-only overview tool, the lack of safety hints and data structure details is a gap.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description gives a high-level idea of what the tool returns ('high-level system status and activity level') but omits details like exact fields, pagination, or how to interpret the combined data. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more complete, but it is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 already provides a complete description of the single optional parameter 'includeInactiveMaintenance'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive system overview') and clearly states it combines problems, maintenance windows, and key metrics in one call. This differentiates it from siblings like zabbix_get_problems or zabbix_get_maintenance by emphasizing the aggregated, high-level nature.

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 use for a combined system-level view ('in one call') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calling get_problems and get_maintenance separately. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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