List deployed edge function names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether results are scoped to a cluster/namespace, whether pagination applies, or what a 'deployed' function means (published vs. draft).

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 sentence with zero filler, so it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative – it spends its only words duplicating the title.

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 two-parameter, one-required listing tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks the return shape (names only vs. full objects), scoping behavior of cluster vs. namespace, and any result-size considerations. The definition is too thin to call correctly without trial and error.

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% for the top-level properties: 'cluster' is a bare pattern-constrained string with no description, and while 'namespace' has a $defs description, the description text never explains either parameter or how they scope the listing. The description therefore 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the complementary supabase_function_get sibling, and no note on prerequisites such as needing a project/cluster context. The listing intent is implied only by the word 'List'.

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