verify_jwt_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' and 'returns a preview,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like what 'preview' entails (e.g., format, content), whether it requires authentication, or potential error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less tool.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a simple check tool, this might suffice, but the absence of output schema means the description should ideally clarify what 'returns a preview' means, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 tool's purpose: 'Checks if the Supabase JWT secret is configured for this server and returns a preview.' It specifies the verb ('Checks'), resource ('Supabase JWT secret'), and scope ('for this server'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_anon_key or get_service_key that retrieve different credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as get_database_connections, which might also involve configuration checks.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server setup), exclusions (e.g., when other tools are more appropriate), or context for usage. Given the sibling tools include various configuration and management functions, this lack of guidance leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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