supabase_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ('Returns status for each service'), adding valuable behavioral context. However, it omits safety classifications (read-only vs. destructive), authentication requirements, and error conditions that would help the agent assess invocation risk.

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 sentences efficiently convey the tool's scope and output. The '[UNIFIED]' tag, while slightly informal, effectively signals aggregation behavior upfront. No redundant phrases or tautology present.

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 single-parameter health check tool, the description adequately explains the operation scope and return value shape, compensating somewhat for the missing output schema. However, the undocumented required parameter and lack of safety guidance leave significant gaps for a production health monitoring tool.

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 coverage is 0% for the required 'site' parameter. The description fails to compensate by explaining what 'site' refers to (URL, project ID, etc.), its format, or providing examples. The single parameter is completely undocumented beyond its existence in the schema.

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 action ('Check health') and target ('all Supabase services'), listing specific components (PostgREST, GoTrue, Storage). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix suggests it aggregates multiple service checks, distinguishing it from single-service health tools like 'supabase_check_function_health' in the sibling list.

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 versus alternatives like 'check_all_projects_health', 'get_project_health', or 'supabase_get_service_status'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring configured site access) or rate limiting considerations.

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