List Wiro projects

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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing what each row contains (id, name, own-project flag, connectability), that no keys are returned, and the exact permission rule for connectability (own project or admin of the owning team). It also explains the conditional side effect of agent_guid on the result, which the annotations cannot convey.

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-loads the core action and purpose, and every sentence carries information (fields shown, permission rule, no keys, agent_guid effect). The second sentence is long and packs multiple ideas together, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, returned fields, permission semantics, and the optional parameter's effect. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already explains agent_guid's source (list_my_agents); the description nonetheless adds behavioral meaning by saying the result then marks which listed project that agent uses. That is real added value over the schema, but the parameter is only mentioned in one clause.

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 the projects of the connected project's workspace') plus the downstream purpose ('to pick one for bind_agent_project'), which separates it cleanly from siblings like list_my_agents or get_account.

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 frames the use case as a selection step feeding bind_agent_project, so the agent knows when to reach for it. It stops short of stating exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to call get_account instead), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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