supabase_list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It compensates partially by disclosing return values ('file names, sizes, and metadata') which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only status), rate limits, or pagination behavior despite the presence of limit/offset parameters.

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 efficiently structured with two front-loaded sentences. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is minor noise but brief. Every sentence adds value—one stating the action and scope, the other disclosing return values—without redundant 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?

Given 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimum viable context by explaining the return structure. However, it falls short of completeness by omitting documentation for 3 of 5 parameters and lacking behavioral constraints (e.g., maximum limit values).

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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by mentioning 'bucket' and 'folder path' (mapping to bucket and path parameters), but leaves 'site', 'limit', and 'offset' completely undocumented. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear resource ('files') and scope ('in a bucket or folder path'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like supabase_delete_files, supabase_download_file, and supabase_list_buckets by specifying it returns metadata (names, sizes) rather than content or bucket-level info.

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 implies usage by stating it returns 'file names, sizes, and metadata,' suggesting use when file enumeration is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus supabase_download_file or supabase_get_public_url, and omits prerequisites like bucket existence or permissions.

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