zabbix_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: why the tool exists (identifiers only exist inside the message text, so 'acknowledge that one' is unactionable without it). It does not describe behavior on unparseable input or the shape of the extracted identifiers.

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?

Three short paragraphs: definition first, then the rationale for the tool's existence, then the usage condition and next steps. Front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only parser with no output schema, the description conveys the input contract, the reason for the tool, and the follow-on routing. The main remaining gap is that it never states what comes back when the text contains no identifiers, which matters since there is no output schema to consult.

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 100% and the property description already covers the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the tolerated input forms — a notification pasted out of a chat client, or a bare event identifier — which broadens the accepted value beyond a strict notification blob.

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: turning notification text into event, host, and trigger identifiers. It also explains the distinguishing role versus siblings by naming zabbix_problem and zabbix_alert_why as the follow-on tools, so an agent can tell this is a parsing/normalization step, not a query.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (user pastes a notification from chat and the identifier is buried in the text) and names the downstream tools to call once the event identifier is extracted. No when-not guidance for malformed or non-notification input, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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