zabbix_problems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the operation is READ and notes that severity levels are 'mapped', but it omits pagination, limits, whether acknowledged problems are included, or how the severity mapping works. The '[READ]' prefix is helpful, but the mapping behavior remains underspecified.

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 compact and front-loaded: the READ nature and resource are stated first, followed by a terse Args list. Every sentence carries meaning, and there is no redundant repetition of schema defaults or boilerplate.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it but not enough to fully anticipate the response. It hints at 'active alerts' with mapped severities but doesn't specify return fields, pagination, or the exact severity mapping. This is minimally viable but leaves output-shape uncertainty.

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%, so the Args section must compensate. It explains min_severity as a 0-5 Zabbix severity threshold with an 'or above' filter, and target as a config-defined name with omit-for-default behavior. This provides semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could add explicit range validation or examples.

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 identifies the resource as 'Current Zabbix problems (active alerts)' and flags the operation as READ. The phrase 'with mapped severity levels' adds a useful output transformation detail. The Zabbix prefix distinguishes it from generic siblings like active_alerts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with zabbix_triggers or zabbix_events.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as zabbix_triggers, zabbix_events, or active_alerts. The only usage context is per-parameter ('Only problems at this Zabbix severity (0-5) or above', 'Zabbix target name from config'). An agent must infer the appropriate selection purely from the tool name and resource phrase.

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