supabase_download_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully states that the tool 'Returns base64 encoded content', which is critical behavioral context given the lack of output schema. However, it omits other important behavioral details such as error handling for missing files, size limitations, 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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero extraneous content. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata tagging, and both the action statement ('Download a file from storage') and return format disclosure earn their place.

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 zero schema coverage for three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is substantially incomplete. While it adequately discloses the return format (base64), the total absence of parameter documentation leaves critical gaps for an agent attempting to construct valid inputs.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its three required parameters (site, bucket, path). With coverage below 50%, the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics, but it completely fails to mention what any parameter represents or how values should be formatted (e.g., path conventions, bucket naming).

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 states a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('file from storage'), and the mention of 'Returns base64 encoded content' distinguishes it from sibling tools like `supabase_get_public_url` (which returns a URL) or `supabase_list_files` (which returns metadata). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from `supabase_upload_file` or `supabase_move_file`.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `supabase_get_public_url` (for URL access) or `supabase_list_files` (for browsing). While the base64 return format implies content retrieval, there are no 'when-to-use' or prerequisite statements.

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