Supabase: List users

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

The description adds some behavioral value by disclosing the returned fields (email, phone, metadata, confirmation status) that the annotations do not cover. However, it describes a plain read ("List all users", "Returns user details") while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, a conflict an agent will trip over; this is flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation, no redundant filler beyond the "[UNIFIED]" tag, which is internal noise for an agent. Structure is clean and easy to skim.

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 three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves the meaning of site and the pagination controls undocumented, and it never addresses the destructive/read-only mismatch implied by the annotations. The return-field summary is the only thing that goes beyond structured fields.

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 carry the parameters, and it does not. It mentions pagination in principle but never explains page vs. per_page, never states the defaults (1 and 50), and never clarifies what the required site parameter 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("List all users") and adds scope (pagination, plus the fields returned). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling supabase_search_users, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which listing tool is appropriate.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. With supabase_search_users sitting next to it as a sibling, the definition never says whether this is the unfiltered enumeration and search is the filtered alternative, so selection is left entirely to inference.

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