List my deployed Wiro agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds scope semantics (team vs personal project) and an indication of what each row contains, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema already declares.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by row contents and the escalation path. The parenthetical about team vs personal is slightly wordy but earns its place as disambiguation.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description need only cover scope and routing — both are present. Only the absence of any pagination hint for a paged list keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (sort enum, limit bounds, start offset) are fully documented there. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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 (list deployed agents) plus an explicit scope qualifier — the connected project's workspace, team vs personal. Nothing in the sibling set (get_my_agent, deploy_agent, list_agent_templates) can be confused with it.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_my_agent with an agent_guid when full state is needed, which is the main alternative. It doesn't state when-not to use this list (e.g., for templates or skills), but the primary fork is covered.

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