kronos_list_services

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the GET endpoint and notes that the response is raw Kronos JSON ('JSON-ответ Кронос как есть'), which is useful behavioral context 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-organized: purpose, endpoint, use case, args, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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-only tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, why it is needed, and how it fits into the create_event flow. It does not discuss pagination or filtering, but these are not critical for this tool.

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 only repeats that filial_id is required, which the schema already states. The schema itself provides a meaningful description of filial_id, so the description adds little semantic value beyond what is already structured.

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 and resource: 'Получить список услуг/товаров филиала' (get the list of branch services/products) and even names the HTTP endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like kronos_list_resources and kronos_list_events by focusing on services/products.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: before calling kronos_create_event, to discover real service ids including group_service_id. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, but the main use case is clearly communicated.

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