supabase_count_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, the return value format (integer vs object), performance implications of counting large tables, or what happens if the specified table 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?

The description is appropriately concise at one sentence, with the '[UNIFIED]' prefix being the only extraneous element. However, given the lack of schema documentation and annotations, this brevity becomes a liability rather than a virtue.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks return value specification, error handling details, and parameter explanations 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only partially addresses 'filters' via 'optionally matching filter conditions' but provides no semantics for 'site' (which Supabase project?), 'table' (format expectations?), or 'use_service_role' (authentication implications?).

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 counts rows in a table with optional filtering, using specific verbs ('Count') and identifying the resource (table rows). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'supabase_query_table', which likely retrieves actual row data rather than just counts.

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 tool versus alternatives like 'supabase_query_table'. There are no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites (e.g., table existence), or exclusions mentioned.

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