Supabase: Get public url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint — the operation fails outside public buckets — but says nothing about whether the returned URL is permanent, signed, or CDN-backed, which matters for how an agent uses the result.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose stated first and the constraint immediately after; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a three-parameter tool, but sentence-level structure is efficient.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description leaves key questions open: parameter meanings, error behavior for private buckets, and what the returned URL looks like. It is adequate as a one-line summary but incomplete 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% for three required parameters (site, bucket, path), so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never explains what 'site' identifies or that 'path' is the file path within the named bucket.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get the public URL for a file'), which is unambiguous and implicitly separates it from URL tools for functions or media uploads. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 clause 'Only works for files in public buckets' gives a clear precondition/exclusion, which is more than nothing. However, it offers no guidance on what to use instead for private buckets or how to handle a public-bucket check, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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