kronos_list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by identifying the HTTP method and stating that the response is the raw Kronos JSON as-is, which sets return-format expectations beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured: purpose, endpoint, usage guidance, parameters, and return type are all covered with no filler. The most important operational instruction—fetch real IDs before dependent calls—is front-loaded and prominent.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and a structured input schema, the description provides the essential workflow context and raw-return expectation. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the openWorldHint annotation.

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 Args section restates filial_id as required and resource_type_id as an optional filter, which is helpful but largely mirrors the nested schema's own descriptions. It does not add extra meaning such as accepted value formats, examples, or how the filter list interacts with the API, so parameter semantics remain adequate rather than enhanced.

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 action and object: 'Получить список ресурсов филиала (залы, аниматоры и т.п.)' and gives the endpoint GET /api/v1/resources. This clearly conveys that the tool lists branch resources and is distinct enough from sibling list tools like kronos_list_services.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool to discover real resource IDs before calling kronos_get_time_slots, kronos_get_available_slots, or kronos_create_event, and notes these IDs are not documented in advance. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative listing tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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