supabase_health

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, but the operation is a simple non-mutating probe and the presence of an output schema covers the result shape. It does not state whether the check is read-only (it inherently is), whether it can fail/time out, or what conditions constitute 'unhealthy', leaving modest gaps.

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. It is appropriately sized, though it errs toward minimalism for a tool whose failure modes an agent might benefit from knowing.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and with zero parameters the schema is trivial. The definition is nearly complete for such a simple probe, missing only a note on failure/timeout semantics.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is self-explanatory.

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+resource: checking connectivity to the configured Supabase project. This clearly separates it from the data-mutation siblings (select/insert/upsert/update/delete) without needing to name them. It stops just short of 5 because it doesn't articulate what 'health' covers beyond connectivity.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of a health check (verify the project is reachable before issuing data operations), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. For a single-purpose probe this is adequate but not instructive.

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