get_server_problems

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves active problems/alerts but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or whether the data is real-time. Does not explain what 'channel server' means or the scope of 'active'.

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 sentence, concise but lacking structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details. For a simple tool, the length is acceptable but could be improved with brief additional 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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description should explain the output (e.g., format, fields) and context (e.g., what constitutes an active problem, how Zabbix is used). It fails to provide enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 sole parameter 'hostname' is a required string with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not clarify its meaning (e.g., Zabbix hostname, server name, or IP) or provide any format constraints, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'active Zabbix problems/alerts for a channel server', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_channel_servers' (which lists servers) and 'investigate_server' (which may provide broader analysis).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when to prefer it over 'investigate_server' or how it differs from 'acknowledge_alerts' or 'search_related_incidents'.

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