kronos_get_event

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the exact HTTP method (GET), the endpoint pattern, that the raw JSON response is returned as-is, and the specific 404 error when the record is not found in the given branch. This goes beyond the annotation defaults.

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 clear sections (purpose, args, returns, error handling) and is free of fluff. It conveys all necessary operational details in a compact format, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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 get-by-id operation, the description covers the purpose, required parameters, return type, and error handling. The annotation covers safety (read-only, idempotent). The only minor omission is an explicit note that the event is scoped to the specified filial, but that is already captured in the schema's filial_id description and the 404 error message.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (event_id and filial_id), including clarification that filial_id refers to a specific branch, not a city or network. The tool description only repeats the parameter names and lists them as required, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 the verb (Получить = get), the resource (one record/booking by id), and the HTTP endpoint. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like kronos_list_events or kronos_get_time_slots, which deal with collections or different resource types.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternates. While the purpose implies 'get a single event by id', there is no explicit mention of use cases, alternatives, or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer intent without any routing hints.

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