zabbix_get_usergroups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention permission requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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 that conveys the core operation and general capabilities without unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool, though it could sacrifice some brevity to include more behavioral context.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, how filtering behaves, or any limitations. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide the operational context an agent would need to use the tool effectively.

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 provides descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat this. The phrase 'filtering and output options' loosely references parameters like 'filter' and 'output' but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already declares. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('user groups from Zabbix'), making it distinct from sibling tools like zabbix_get_users or zabbix_create_usergroup. The mention of 'filtering and output options' adds useful scope, though it could be more specific about the exact capabilities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool might be more appropriate. There is no mention of alternatives or complementary tools.

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