get_project_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Returns'), but does not specify if this requires authentication, involves rate limits, or details the return format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, resulting in an average score.

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, clear sentence that directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or return format, which could be helpful for an agent in a broader context. It meets the minimum viable standard without being comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information.

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 action ('Returns') and the resource ('configured Supabase project URL'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_anon_key' or 'get_service_key', which also retrieve configuration values, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'get_' tools for different configuration values. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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