supabase_check_function_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose key behaviors. It doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what constitutes a 'correct' response, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 and appropriately brief, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is structural noise that doesn't aid tool selection. Otherwise efficiently structured.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter documentation, return value description, and error behavior details that would be necessary for correct invocation.

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% and the description completely fails to compensate. While 'Edge Function' implicitly maps to 'function_name', the 'site' parameter is entirely undocumented with no hints about expected format (URL, project ref, instance name).

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 clearly states the tool checks if an Edge Function is responding correctly, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't clarify what 'responding correctly' means (HTTP 200, specific health endpoint, etc.) and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value.

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 provided on when to use this versus similar siblings like 'supabase_test_function', 'supabase_invoke_function', or 'supabase_get_function_info'. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it over alternatives.

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