supabase_query_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully documents the PostgREST operator syntax and mentions pagination, but fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only status), return format, or the implications of the use_service_role parameter.

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 efficiently structured with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the specific operator reference. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is slightly cryptic metadata, but the overall density is high with minimal waste.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description adequately covers the filtering syntax but leaves significant gaps regarding return values, authentication requirements (use_service_role), and site parameter semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It thoroughly documents the filters parameter via the operator list and implies sorting/pagination parameters, but leaves site, table, select, and use_service_role completely unexplained despite having no schema descriptions to fall back on.

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 'Query data from a table' with specific capabilities (filters, sorting, pagination), distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like supabase_insert_rows, supabase_update_rows, and supabase_delete_rows.

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 lists PostgREST operators (eq, neq, gt, etc.) which provides implicit 'how-to-use' guidance for the filters parameter, but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' guidance versus alternatives like supabase_count_rows or when to avoid pagination.

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