supabase_invoke_function_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It identifies the GET method and read-only nature, but omits critical details: authentication requirements, expected response format, error handling behavior, rate limits, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Extremely compact at two sentences. The '[UNIFIED]' tag consumes limited description real estate without adding semantic value, slightly penalizing an otherwise efficiently structured description that leads with the action and follows with usage guidance.

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 annotations, no output schema, and the complexity of invoking remote edge functions, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter documentation, return value expectations, and error scenarios necessary for reliable agent operation.

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 the description completely fails to compensate. No explanation provided for 'site' (project identifier?), 'function_name' (format constraints?), or 'params' (JSON string? query string format?), leaving all three 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 specific action ('Invoke'), resource ('Supabase Edge Function'), and HTTP method ('GET'), distinguishing it from the generic 'supabase_invoke_function' sibling. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix indicates architecture 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?

Provides positive guidance ('Use for read-only operations') indicating appropriate use cases, but lacks explicit contrast with sibling tools like 'supabase_invoke_function' (generic) or 'supabase_invoke_function_batch' to clarify when to choose this specific variant over alternatives.

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