supabase_get_table_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive metadata lookup, but the description says nothing about permissions required, whether it hits the database or a cache, or whether the table must exist. It adds no behavioral context beyond the one-line purpose.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place and the resource is named before the qualifier.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does name what is returned ('column definitions and data types'), which partially covers the return shape. However, with no annotations and no return-format detail (nullability, defaults, keys), it is only minimally adequate for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 a single required 'table' parameter that the schema documents as 'Table name to get schema for'. The description adds no qualifier such as schema/namespace or quoting rules, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('column definitions and data types for a specific table'), making the scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like supabase_list_tables or supabase_query, but the metadata-vs-data distinction is implicit and clear.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus supabase_list_tables (which presumably enumerates tables) or supabase_execute_sql. The description contains no 'use this before X' or 'not for Y' context, leaving the agent to infer the workflow step.

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