Supabase: List policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what fields a policy exposes, whether results are paginated, or whether disabled/absent RLS is distinguished. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a minimal-gain description on the behavioral axis.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the filtering capability. No filler, no restated title boilerplate beyond the necessary scope statement.

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?

The tool is simple and read-only, and no output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say more about the returned policy shape. It also leaves the required `site` parameter unexplained, which is a real gap for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially covers the `table` parameter (a name-based filter) but says nothing about `site`, which is the only required parameter and is likely a project reference. Half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (Row Level Security policies), and mentions the filterable dimension (table name). This clearly distinguishes it from the mutation siblings like supabase_create_policy and supabase_delete_policy. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

'Can filter by table name' implies the main usage (inspect RLS on a particular table) but never states prerequisites such as needing the table to exist or which site to target. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so the agent must infer the context.

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