supabase_get_instance_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm safety characteristics, mention rate limiting, caching behavior, or required permissions. It mentions return data (base URL, endpoints) but not the response format or structure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action verb 'Get.' The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata tagging that slightly obscures the opening but does not significantly impact clarity. Every word serves a purpose in describing the tool's scope.

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 getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description minimally explains what data is returned (base URL, API endpoints). However, given the lack of annotations and zero schema coverage, the description fails to document the 'site' parameter or explain behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for agent operation.

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 the required 'site' parameter. The description provides no compensating documentation for this parameter—leaving it ambiguous whether 'site' expects a URL, project ID, or instance name. With zero schema documentation and no description fallback, the parameter is effectively 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 'Supabase instance information' and specifically mentions 'base URL and available API endpoints,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific resources (buckets, tables, users). However, it lacks explicit contrast with similar metadata tools like supabase_get_service_status or supabase_health_check.

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. The description states what the tool does but offers no 'when-to-use' context, prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), or pointers to related tools like supabase_get_service_status for health checks versus instance metadata.

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