vercel_raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that auth, retries, and rate-limiting are handled automatically, and that the team scope is auto-injected unless overridden. It does not describe error handling or side effects, but for a generic raw API tool, this level of disclosure is adequate.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage details, and usage boundaries. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and contains no wasted words. Excellent conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (generic raw API endpoint) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters, scope handling, and when to use. It references external documentation for full API details. Could mention that the response is raw JSON from the API, but this is implied for an 'escape hatch' tool.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it emphasizes that the path must include the version segment (e.g., '/v9/projects'), explains that params are query parameters, body is for POST/PUT/PATCH, and clarifies team scope auto-injection. This provides practical semantics for correct usage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Call any Vercel REST endpoint directly (escape hatch for full API coverage).' It uses a specific verb ('call') and resource ('any Vercel REST endpoint'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings with 'Use this only when no dedicated tool exists.'

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this only when no dedicated tool exists.' It also details how to construct requests (method, full path including version, optional params/body), mentions team scope auto-injection, and notes that auth/retries/rate-limiting are handled. This covers usage context and exclusions.

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