functions_list_rpc_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'List candidates' without explaining what makes a function an RPC candidate, filtering logic, or output behavior. This lack of detail leaves the tool's behavior opaque.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a practical parameter tip. It is concise and free of fluff, though a bit more detail would not hurt.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks context on what an 'RPC candidate' is and how this tool relates to 'functions_list'. Without annotations or usage guidelines, an agent may not fully understand when to invoke it, but the minimal scope prevents a lower score.

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 shows one optional parameter with a default, but its description coverage is 0%. The description adds a useful hint that schema_name='all' lists all schemas, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the parameter's full semantics or expected value format.

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 uses 'List' as a specific verb and identifies the resource as 'Supabase RPC-callable function candidates'. It clearly states the primary action and target, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'functions_list'.

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 the similar 'functions_list' or other siblings. The only hint is about the schema_name parameter value 'all', which is parameter usage, not usage context.

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