vercel_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond listing. It omits authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with no projects.

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 words is concise, but the description is under-specified, lacking any structure or front-loading of useful information. It fails to earn its place with meaningful content.

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?

Given no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It provides no context about response format, constraints, or behavior, which is necessary for effective tool use.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema defines one optional parameter with a default, but the description adds no value or meaning.

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 'List Vercel projects' uses a clear verb+resource format, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vercel_get_deployment' which gets a single deployment.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as other list tools (e.g., rail, gitlab, etc.). Context signals show many sibling list tools, but the description provides no selection criteria.

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