supabase_get_table_constraints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only implies read-only safety through the verb 'Get'. It fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., non-existent table), return format structure, or any rate limiting concerns.

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 efficient sentence without redundancy. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix at the beginning adds no semantic value for tool selection and slightly degrades the front-loading of important information.

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 descriptions, missing output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It should explain parameter semantics or at least characterize the return value (e.g., 'returns constraint definitions including column names and constraint types').

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description only implicitly references the 'table' parameter ('for a table'). It completely omits explanation of 'site' (likely Supabase project identifier) and 'schema' (PostgreSQL schema namespace), leaving critical targeting 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 'all constraints' and specifically enumerates the types (primary key, foreign key, unique, check), distinguishing it from siblings like supabase_get_table_indexes or supabase_get_table_schema. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is non-descriptive noise but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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_get_table_relationships (which may overlap on foreign keys) or supabase_get_table_schema. No prerequisites (e.g., table existence) or exclusions are mentioned.

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