List Vercel projects

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

The description adds the scope note 'visible to the configured account or team', which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, the annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or rate limits.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then briefly mentions the two optional parameters. There is no redundancy or filler; every word adds value.

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 listing tool, the description is adequately complete when combined with the rich schema (100% parameter coverage) and the output schema. The only minor gap is that it does not hint that get_project can be used for detailed single-project information, but that is not essential for using this tool correctly.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit: 'Max results (default 20)', search: 'Filter projects by name') with 100% coverage. The description only paraphrases these as 'Optional text search and result limit', adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('projects') with a scope qualifier ('visible to the configured account or team'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and list_deployments (a different resource).

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?

The description implies the tool is for listing projects and mentions optional search and limit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tool set (get_project, list_deployments) suggests different purposes, but the description itself does not guide selection.

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