get_maintenance_windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the precise definition of 'Active' (current time inside the window's own time period vs. outer frame), the special handling and labeling of recurring windows, the timezone caveat, and the fact that expired windows accumulate because set_maintenance never deletes them. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: the purpose, usage scenario, behavioral nuances, and parameter explanation are all necessary. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, uses paragraph breaks effectively, and ends with a clear 'Args' section. No fluff or repetition.

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 this is a read-only list tool with one optional boolean parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential context: the parameter's meaning and default, the distinction between Active/Upcoming/Expired, the recurring-window caveat, timezone, and the accumulation of expired windows. Nothing important is left unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, and it does thoroughly: include_expired is defined as 'Also list windows whose active_till has passed,' the default is stated, and the rationale (expired ones accumulate over time and are noise by default) adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare boolean type.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List Zabbix maintenance windows' and explicitly positions it as 'the read counterpart to set_maintenance,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools. The purpose is immediately clear and not a mere tautology.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: cross-check anomalies from other tools before treating them as new incidents, with a concrete example (device unreachability, AP-offline reports). It also explains when Active windows matter and contrasts with set_maintenance, giving clear contextual guidance without needing to list exclusions.

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