Supabase: List triggers

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not say what a trigger record contains, whether system triggers are included, whether results are paginated, or what happens when no triggers exist.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the optional filter. The "[UNIFIED]" tag is the only wasted token, and nothing is buried or redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin: the required site parameter and the return shape are both undocumented. The only thing covered is the existence of a table filter.

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 and does not. It hints that "table" is a name filter but gives no format or matching semantics, and completely ignores the required "site" parameter, leaving the agent to guess what it identifies.

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?

"List database triggers" states a specific verb and resource, and "Can filter by table name" adds scope. The purpose is clear on its own, but nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling list_* tools beyond the resource noun, and the "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained noise.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., required permissions or that a site must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as inspecting triggers through other tools. The agent must infer everything about context from the name.

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