kronos_list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it returns Kronos JSON verbatim, and it honestly warns that the pagination shape is not documented by the vendor and should be verified against a real account.

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 organized into purpose, args, and returns, with the endpoint and the pagination caveat earning their place. The Args section partly repeats schema information, but it is compact and helps an agent quickly see the full set of filters without inspecting nested schema definitions.

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?

The description covers what is needed to invoke the tool: required branch/filial id, optional filters, pagination support, and the raw return format with a vendor caveat. Because an output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, the missing details such as exact response fields are acceptable. The only real gap is explicit sibling-tool differentiation.

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 consolidates the parameter contract by marking filial_id as required, listing all optional filters, and giving the specific parent_id use case of retrieving 'доборных детей' child records for a group slot. While the schema already provides per-property descriptions, the description adds useful semantic framing and makes the required/optional split explicit in one place.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Получить список записей (броней) с фильтрами' and identifies the endpoint GET /api/v1/events. This clearly signals a list operation and distinguishes it from sibling singular/state-changing tools like kronos_get_event, kronos_create_event, and kronos_delete_event.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a filtered, paginated list of bookings/events is needed. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternatives such as kronos_get_event for a single event or kronos_get_available_slots for availability. The filtering context is clear but the alternative routing is left to inference.

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