supabase_get_table_relationships

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. It only adds the bidirectional nature of the lookup (to/from references) but fails to indicate if this is read-only, what format relationships are returned in, 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 core sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage that doesn't earn its place in the description text, slightly reducing clarity.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter documentation and any indication of the return structure, which are critical gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description implies the 'table' parameter through context ('for a table'), but provides no explanation for 'site' (unclear if URL, project ID, etc.) or 'schema' (despite having a default value of 'public').

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('foreign key relationships'), with specific scope clarification ('both references to and from this table'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like supabase_get_table_schema or supabase_get_table_constraints by specifying the exact metadata type retrieved.

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 (e.g., supabase_get_table_schema for full schema details), nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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