Get a Wiro agent template

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing credential lifecycle ('can be added after deployment, but skills that need them do not work until set') and that the prices returned are the exact amounts deploy_agent charges. It stops short of describing pagination or response size, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of return content, then a caveat sentence. Every clause corresponds to something an agent must know, though the long middle enumeration is list-heavy and could be trimmed if the output schema already names those fields.

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, two-parameter tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the decision-relevant facts: when to read, what comes back, and the credential consequence for deployment. The only shortfall is the unmentioned include_tasks behavior, which an agent must still discover from the schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds no argument-level detail. It hints at content (skills, credentials, channels, models, prices) without ever connecting that content to the include_tasks flag that gates scheduled tasks and custom instructions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one agent template') and pins the moment of use ('before deploying it'), then enumerates exactly what the read yields: skills, required credentials with field labels, chat channels, models with credit-per-1M-token rates, and Starter/Pro prices. This clearly separates it from the sibling list_agent_templates (many, summary) and deploy_agent (the write action it feeds).

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?

'before deploying it' gives a concrete decision point for invoking the tool, and the closing sentence explains why the read matters (missing credentials break skills). It does not explicitly name list_agent_templates as the way to obtain a slug, but the schema description covers that link, leaving only a mild gap in alternative-routing guidance.

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