hostgroup_get

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

The annotations already characterize the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns with that by saying it 'retrieves' host groups. The description adds a generic 'optional filtering' trait and domain context, but does not disclose details like pagination behavior or response shape. No contradiction exists, but the behavioral transparency is mostly carried by the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and quickly communicates the main behavior. There is minor redundancy between 'Get host groups from Zabbix' and 'Retrieves host groups with optional filtering,' but the sentence adds the filtering scope, and the third sentence gives useful domain context. Overall, it stays concise and digestible.

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 is sufficient for a list-oriented read tool when combined with rich annotations, a fully documented parameter schema, and an output schema. It explains why host groups matter in Zabbix and notes optional filtering, which is enough context for an agent to understand the operation. It lacks explicit sibling routing, but that gap is already captured in the usage-guidelines dimension.

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 every parameter is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description only says 'optional filtering' without referencing specific parameters like limit, search, or groupids, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter explanation burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: it retrieves host groups from Zabbix. It also adds that the retrieval supports optional filtering, which clarifies the scope of the operation. This makes the tool easy to distinguish from mutation tools like hostgroup_create, hostgroup_update, and hostgroup_delete.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: an agent should call this tool when it needs host groups, especially for organizing or managing Zabbix hosts collectively. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the agent gets only weak support in choosing this over sibling tools like host_get or hostgroup_update.

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