kronos_get_time_slots

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations: it states the response is a raw JSON string as returned by the vendor, warns that the response format is not documented, and documents concrete error cases including missing filial_id and HTTP 401/403 rejection. This gives the agent practical expectations about failure modes and output reliability.

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 front-loaded with purpose and sibling distinction, then uses clear labeled sections for Args, Returns, and Error Handling. Each section provides necessary invocation detail without fluff or redundant 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?

Given the annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description covers the remaining needed context: when to use it, what parameters matter, what the return looks like, and what errors to expect. The mention that response format is vendor-undocumented is especially important for agents relying on the output.

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 description enumerates all parameters and their constraints: resource_id as required list, date as optional YYYY-MM-DD, day_count 1-30 default 1, interval 5-720 default 60. It further adds the KRONOS_DEFAULT_FILIAL_ID fallback behavior, which is not explicit in schema. It slightly restates schema details but compensates for the 0% reported top-level schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Получить все слоты времени по ресурсам (включая занятые)' and names the exact endpoint GET /api/v1/time-slots. It explicitly contrasts this tool with kronos_get_available_slots, making the distinction between full schedule visibility and free-only slots unambiguous.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: use kronos_get_available_slots when only free slots need to be shown to a client, and use this tool for administrative/diagnostic schedule viewing. It directly names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity.

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