vercel_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no statement about whether the list is scoped to a team or spans all teams, and no mention of auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but so terse that the terseness becomes under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of pagination or team scoping, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the operational details are 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 description coverage is 0% for three parameters (limit, teamId, api_key), yet the description mentions none of them. Critically, it says 'all projects' while offering a teamId filter, leaving the scoping semantics ambiguous rather than clarified.

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 Vercel projects), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as vercel_list_deployments, supabase_list_projects, or netlify_list_sites, so an agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a team scope or an API key. The agent gets no help deciding between this and other listing tools.

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