supabase_auth_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral context that this lists all users (no filtering) and supports pagination, which is useful for managing large result sets. However, it does not disclose response shape or potential side effects, but these are largely absent for a read-only list.

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 front-loads the key information. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to specifying the tool's function.

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 list tool with well-covered parameters and read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format (e.g., array of user objects) or that defaults apply, but the tool name and schema make these largely inferable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with page and perPage already having descriptive labels and defaults. The description's 'with pagination' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so 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 'List all users with pagination' uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'users', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like auth_get_user (single user) and auth_create_user. The scope 'all users' and pagination detail make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool lists all users with pagination, implying use when a full or paginated list of auth users is needed. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear given sibling tools; no conflicting guidance exists.

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