list_supabase_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating which projects are usable as migration targets (ACTIVE_HEALTHY only) and what fields are returned. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences and every sentence carries useful information: purpose, return fields, downstream usage, and an alternative action. It is slightly front-loaded with the core list action, and the guidance about presenting choices is actionable but not bloated. A tight 4.

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 simple one-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the required instance ID context, the fields returned, the ACTIVE_HEALTHY restriction, and the follow-up options. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the only parameter, supabaseIntegrationInstanceId, is already described in the schema as coming from list_integration_instances. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning how the result id is used downstream, which is not directly about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List all Supabase projects accessible through a connected Supabase integration instance.' It also enumerates the returned fields (name, reference ID, region, status), making the tool's output scope clear. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_supabase_organizations and list_supabase_regions.

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 gives explicit guidance on using the output: use the project's id as targetSupabaseProjectRef when creating a migration, and only ACTIVE_HEALTHY projects are valid targets. It also instructs the agent to present the list and let the user choose, or offer create_supabase_project as an alternative, clearly routing to the sibling.

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