get_management_api_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states this is a 'low-risk read operation that can be executed in SAFE mode,' describes what information is returned (endpoints, parameters, schemas, auth requirements, safety info), and explains the four different usage patterns. The only minor gap is lack of information about rate limits or pagination, but overall it provides comprehensive behavioral context.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections for purpose, usage patterns, parameters, domains, and utility. While comprehensive, every sentence earns its place by adding value. The only minor issue is some redundancy in the safety statement at the end, but overall it's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized.

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 of a tool that returns API specifications with multiple usage patterns, and with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, how to use it in different scenarios, what parameters mean, what domains are available, what information the specification contains, and safety considerations. This fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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 schema only shows 'params' as an object with no properties documented), the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains all four optional parameters (path, method, domain, all_paths) with examples and clear descriptions of what each does. It also lists available domain values with explanations, effectively documenting what would normally be in the schema's enum or property descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Get the complete Supabase Management API specification' with specific details about what it returns (OpenAPI spec including endpoints, parameters, schemas, auth requirements, safety info). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_auth_admin_methods_spec' by covering the entire Management API rather than just auth methods, and from 'send_management_api_request' by providing documentation rather than executing requests.

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 explicit usage guidelines with four distinct scenarios: 1) without parameters returns all domains, 2) with path and method returns specific endpoint spec, 3) with domain only returns all paths/methods in that domain, 4) with all_paths=True returns all paths/methods. It also explains when this tool is useful (understanding available operations, request formatting, unsafe mode requirements, response structures), giving clear context for when to use it versus alternatives.

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