supabase_list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds no additional safety context. It also introduces ambiguity with 'database schema', which could be confused with the 'schema' parameter, and it does not disclose return format or whether system tables are included.

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 with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, front-loading the action ('List') and the resource ('tables').

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 simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic operation. However, it omits what the response contains (e.g., table names, metadata, pagination), which is a gap for a tool that returns a list.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter already clearly documented as 'Schema to list tables from (default: public)'. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tables in the database schema' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tables'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like supabase_query or supabase_insert, and there is no competing table-listing sibling.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as discovering tables before querying, or exclusions like system schemas. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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