supabase_list_schemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm safety characteristics, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what data structure is returned (especially critical given no output schema exists).

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 brief and front-loaded, but excessively so given the lack of schema documentation. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix wastes space without adding value, and the brevity becomes a liability when critical parameter context is omitted entirely.

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?

Despite being a simple single-parameter tool, the definition is incomplete. With zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needed to explain both the 'site' parameter and return value format. It does neither, leaving the agent without sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 required 'site' parameter. The description fails to compensate by explaining what constitutes a valid site identifier (URL, project ID, etc.), what Supabase project it refers to, or providing an example. The parameter is 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 clearly states 'List all database schemas (namespaces)' which uses a specific verb and identifies the resource. The parenthetical '(namespaces)' helpfully clarifies PostgreSQL terminology, distinguishing it from table schemas or other siblings like supabase_list_tables. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't aid comprehension.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., supabase_get_table_schema for individual table structures), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication requirements or specific site configurations needed to access schema information.

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