get_problems

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers it: it discloses ordering (newest-first), age annotation, the cap behavior with true total reporting, the floor on limit, and the dependency between tag_value and tag_name. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent critical behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose and a clear Args section. It is slightly verbose, repeating 'newest first' in the opening and second paragraph, but every sentence otherwise contributes useful information about result behavior and parameters.

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 has an output schema, so the description need not detail return fields. It covers all parameters, explains the cap and total behavior, and provides enough context for a 4-parameter read-only tool. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit alternative-tool guidance, but that is addressed in the usage 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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: min_severity with severity levels, tag_name, tag_value (with dependency), and limit (with floor and cap behavior). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 'Get active Zabbix problems, newest first' with a specific verb and resource. It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like get_hosts and acknowledge_problem by focusing on problem retrieval rather than host inventory or mutation.

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 implies usage when active Zabbix problems are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria. There is clear context about the tool's behavior, but no mention of when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_hosts or health_check.

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