zabbix_get_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'aggregated historical data' but doesn't explain what aggregation means (e.g., hourly resolution), typical response structure, or any side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name and doesn't disambiguate from other data retrieval tools.

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 front-loads the core purpose. No filler words, and it efficiently communicates the resource and the key differentiator ('aggregated').

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description only provides a one-line summary. It doesn't explain how trends differ from history, what time range behavior to expect, or what the return data looks like. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is incomplete contextual information for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema itself is detailed. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'trends data' for items, with a parenthetical clarifying it's 'aggregated historical data'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zabbix_get_history (raw history) and zabbix_get_latest_data (latest values), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'aggregated historical data' implies a use case different from raw history, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over zabbix_get_history or zabbix_get_latest_data. The usage context is implied rather than stated, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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