supabase_auth_get_user

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

Annotations already convey that this is a read-only, idempotent operation. The description reinforces this by saying 'get' but adds no new behavioral details such as error handling, return format when the user is not found, or auth requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and noun, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with read-only annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool does and the key identifier. However, it could mention whether the tool returns null or throws on missing users, but given the simplicity, the current level of detail is acceptable.

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 already fully documents the only parameter (userId) with its format (UUID). The description does not add any semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 is specific and unambiguous: it states the action (get) and the resource (a single user by ID). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_users, create_user, update_user, and delete_user because it focuses on retrieval of one user by ID.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a specific user ID and need that user's details), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_users for multiple users. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the usage context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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