service_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds domain knowledge about services and dependencies, which is contextual, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination (though the schema covers that) or any limitations. It does not contradict the annotations; it simply adds minimal behavior beyond what annotations already provide.

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 concise: two sentences that state the tool's purpose and provide domain context. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get services from Zabbix') and follows with explanatory detail. There is no fluff or unrelated content, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool is a read-only get operation with 10 parameters but an output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description provides key domain context (services as business capabilities and hierarchical dependencies), which is essential for an agent to understand the resource. While it does not explicitly explain how to use parentids for dependency traversal, the schema covers that. The description is complete enough for the tool's read-only nature and schema richness.

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 coverage is 90%, which is high, so the schema already documents most parameters (limit, offset, search, parentids, etc.) with descriptions. The tool description provides no additional parameter information, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. The description does not compensate for the few uncovered parameters, but it does not need to given the schema's richness.

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 tool retrieves services from Zabbix, naming the resource and action. It also provides useful domain context (services represent business capabilities and can form hierarchies), which helps differentiate it from other *_get tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like host_get or item_get, so it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains what services are, but not when an agent should choose service_get over other get endpoints. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided. The tool's purpose is implied but no usage context is given.

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