supabase_list_user_factors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like (array of factor objects), or whether disabled/unverified factors are included.

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 and front-loaded with the key action and resource. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't add 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate by specifying the types of MFA factors returned. However, it should ideally describe the return structure since no output schema exists to document it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It fails to clarify what 'site' represents (project URL vs name) or the expected format for 'user_id' (UUID). The phrase 'for a user' vaguely implies the user_id parameter but provides no semantic details.

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 specific action ('List'), resource ('MFA factors'), and scope (TOTP and phone types) for a specific user. The verb 'List' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'supabase_delete_user_factor'.

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?

While the description specifies that this retrieves MFA factors (implying use when MFA information is needed), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'supabase_get_user' or prerequisites like user existence checks. Usage is implied but not stated.

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