mavis_supabase

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

With no annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral constraint: read-only by design and specific denied subcommands. It does not cover error handling or output, but it adds the most critical safety context for an agent.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, followed by a behavioral constraint, then concrete examples. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff, making it easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description conveys enough to select and use it: what it does, what it denies, and how to pass args. It lacks return-value details, but the core context is present.

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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples reinforce the args format but do not add significant semantic depth 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 it runs a supabase CLI command in the workspace, which is a specific verb and resource. It also notes the read-only design, further differentiating it from generic shell or write tools.

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 explicitly denies write subcommands (db push, db reset, db execute), providing clear when-not guidance. It gives examples of acceptable commands, but does not name alternative tools for write operations, leaving usage context clear but not fully explicit.

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