get_supabase_project_status

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral semantics beyond that: healthy/transitioning/unavailable states, the polling loop, and the explicit warning not to treat a transitioning state as permission to create another project.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: what it reads, when to poll, and how to interpret the states. No filler or repetition; each sentence contributes to correct invocation and decision-making.

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 status-polling tool with a read-only annotation, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and stop conditions. The return fields are left to the output schema, as appropriate.

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 100%, with both required parameters already documented, including projectRef provenance as create_supabase_project.id. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the lifecycle state of a Supabase project.' It grounds the tool in the Staticbot lifecycle, distinguishing it from bare listing tools like list_supabase_projects and from deployment/account status siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: poll after create_supabase_project until healthy=true before using the project as a migration target. It also gives exclusion guidance: transitioning states mean wait, and unavailable=true means stop and report rather than creating another project.

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