supabase_get_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning 'settings and limits' but fails to disclose if this is a safe read-only operation, what happens if the bucket doesn't exist, or whether it requires specific authentication scopes.

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/metadata leakage that should be removed. Otherwise, every word earns its 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with 2 parameters, the description mentions the return data ('settings and limits') but lacks error handling context or parameter semantics. Given no output schema exists, it minimally suffices but leaves gaps for operational use.

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 both 'site' and 'bucket_id' parameters. The description completely fails to compensate by explaining what 'site' refers to (project ref, URL, etc.) or the expected format for 'bucket_id', leaving critical parameters undocumented.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific bucket, including what data is returned ('settings and limits'). The 'specific' qualifier effectively distinguishes it from sibling list_buckets. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is metadata noise that doesn't aid the agent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like supabase_list_buckets or supabase_create_bucket. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., bucket must exist) or error conditions.

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