Supabase: Get service status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's obligation is to add context beyond that. It does not say what "detailed status" contains (health, uptime, version, config), whether it is a live probe or cached data, or what happens for an unknown service name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and valid targets come first. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is mild noise but does not obscure meaning.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It still leaves the agent guessing about the `site` parameter and what fields the returned status will include, which matters for deciding whether this tool answers the question.

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% and both parameters are bare strings, so the description carries real weight here. It usefully enumerates the accepted `service` values, but leaves `site` completely undefined (format, identifier type, or examples).

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+resource ("Get detailed status of a specific Supabase service") and enumerates the valid service targets (postgrest, gotrue, storage, postgres-meta). This separates it from instance-wide siblings like supabase_get_instance_info or supabase_get_database_stats, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "a specific Supabase service" suggests per-service health checks rather than aggregate stats. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. auth/site configuration) guidance.

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