list_supabase_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the tool lists 'accessible' organizations and that the id should be used unchanged, which is useful workflow context, but it does not disclose any side effects or deeper behavioral details beyond that.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently conveys the workflow, selection guidance, and a caution. It is concise without being terse, though the instruction to 'present the organization names' could be seen as slightly redundant with 'list'.

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 presence of an output schema and the clear workflow guidance, the description covers the essential context for invoking the tool correctly. It explains the relationship to create_supabase_project and the selection rule, though it does not detail the output format or any edge cases.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter with a clear description and source reference. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter itself, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as listing Supabase organizations accessible through a connected integration instance, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_supabase_projects. It also positions it in a workflow by mentioning create_supabase_project, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to call this before create_supabase_project and to present the organization names to the user, which provides clear when-to-use context. It also cautions against guessing when multiple organizations are available, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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