zabbix_problem

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing which fields are returned (host, severity, state) and by scoping results to *active* problems, implying resolved events are not returned. It does not say what happens when the event id is unknown or refers to a non-problem event.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded in the first line and the routing guidance follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It leaves the not-found / non-problem-event behavior unspecified, a minor gap for a single-param read tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile.

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% for the single 'event' parameter, so the schema already documents it with a type and an example. The description only restates it as 'event identifier' and adds no format, encoding, or lookup constraints beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Show), resource (one active problem) and scope (by event identifier), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling zabbix_problems which returns the list. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('the user gives one event identifier and wants that problem's host, severity and state') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: zabbix_problems for what is broken now, zabbix_alert_why for notification delivery questions.

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