supabase_list_extensions

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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks explicit safety guarantees, return format details (array of names vs objects), pagination behavior, or error handling for invalid sites.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential action and resource. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage but doesn't significantly detract from the core message. The parenthetical examples add value without verbosity.

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 list operation, the description adequately covers the core concept but remains incomplete due to the undocumented parameter and lack of output schema description. It meets minimum viability for an agent to understand the tool's domain, though not its invocation details.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'site' parameter, and the description text adds no compensatory information about what constitutes a valid site identifier (e.g., project reference, URL, or name), leaving the parameter completely 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('installed PostgreSQL extensions') and provides concrete examples (pgvector, postgis, uuid-ossp). The action clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like supabase_enable_extension and supabase_disable_extension.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like supabase_enable_extension, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid site identifier) or workflow context (e.g., checking installed extensions before installing new ones).

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