Vercel inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific fields returned (aliases, state, regions, creator), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, network dependencies, or whether it works only for deployments owned by the user. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate – the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise, using only five words to convey the core purpose. There is no redundant phrasing, and the main point is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, so while it earns credit for conciseness, it falls short of being optimally structured because it omits essential usage context.

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 tool with a single parameter, no enums, and an output schema, the description is minimal but incomplete. It does not specify the input format, any prerequisites, or how the tool behaves in edge cases (e.g., invalid deployment ID). The annotations provide read-only safety, but the description lacks enough information for an agent to call it correctly without additional assumptions. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to describe return values, but the input parameter remains ambiguous.

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 explain what the 'deployment' parameter expects (e.g., ID, URL, name). The phrase 'Deployment detail' implies the parameter is a deployment identifier, but no format or example is provided. With no schema description and no clarification in the text, the parameter semantics are completely underspecified, leaving the agent to guess the correct input.

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 'Deployment detail: aliases, state, regions, creator' clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific deployment, listing the exact attributes it returns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vercel_deployments (list deployments) and vercel_logs (fetch logs), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer that it is for a single deployment's details, but without explicit direction. For example, there is no note that this complements vercel_deployments or that it is the right choice for inspecting a specific deployment rather than listing all.

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