Read edge function source files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of return shape, size limits, or failure modes when the function does not exist.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing. Nothing in it is wasteful, yet nothing extra is earned either.

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?

There is no output schema and only three undocumented parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining inputs and results and does neither. An agent cannot tell what the call returns (source text, file list, signed URLs) or what the required 'name' must be.

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 0%; 'name' and 'cluster' are bare patterned strings with no explanation, and only 'namespace' carries a description via $ref. The description does not say what 'name' refers to (function name? file path?) or what 'cluster' identifies, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer supabase_functions_list, and no stated prerequisites (auth, project state). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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