zabbix_problems

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: suppressed problems are returned by default and annotate which maintenance window hides them, and truncation is reported. It stops short of describing return fields or pagination, but the default-suppression disclosure is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action and ordering, then behavior, then routing. The rationale sentence ('Hiding them silently is how an outage goes unnoticed for weeks') is editorial but earns its place by justifying the default-include behavior; the only minor cost is a slightly chatty tone.

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?

Seven parameters at full schema coverage, no output schema, and the description still covers the surprising default (suppressed included) and correct sibling routing. It omits any hint of what a returned problem record looks like and nothing about pagination beyond the schema's truncation note, but for a read-only list tool that is a minor gap.

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%, so all seven parameters already carry their own meaning. The description adds only an implicit tie to exclude_suppressed via the 'included by default' statement; it offers no extra format, matching, or severity-scale detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List active Zabbix problems') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first') that no sibling provides. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from zabbix_problem (single event identifier) and zabbix_alert_why (missing notification), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 concrete invocation triggers ('what is broken right now', 'which problems are firing', 'whether anything is in alarm') and names two alternative tools with the conditions that select them. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else cases are covered.

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