supabase_list_policies

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 but fails to mention safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), return format, pagination behavior, or what 'UNIFIED' signifies. It only notes the filtering capability.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag at the beginning adds noise without value, preventing a perfect score.

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 simple two-parameter listing tool without an output schema, the description meets minimum viability by stating the core function and one parameter's use. However, gaps remain regarding the 'site' parameter requirements and expected return 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate for both parameters. It explains the 'table' parameter's purpose via 'filter by table name,' but completely omits any explanation of the required 'site' parameter, leaving 50% of 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 tool lists Row Level Security (RLS) policies, specifying both the verb (List) and the resource. While the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary metadata, the core purpose is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like supabase_create_policy or supabase_list_tables.

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 mentions the ability to filter by table name, hinting at a use case, but provides no explicit guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives like supabase_create_policy or when filtering is unnecessary. It states capability without selection criteria.

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