supabase_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it discloses nothing about the 100-row default limit, ordering behavior, pagination, error/permission responses, or the read-only nature implied by the verb. "Allowed table" is the sole behavioral hint, which is far short of what a 5-parameter data-access tool needs.

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 tight sentence with the core verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and behavior detail the tool actually needs.

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 5-parameter database read with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin to be complete. An agent cannot infer the filter expression format, pagination behavior, or return shape from what is provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It adds only that filtering uses "PostgREST filter expressions" — useful syntax context for `filters` — while `limit`, `order`, `columns`, and `table` receive no explanation at all.

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?

Specific verb ("Read rows") and resource ("table") are stated plainly, and the name plus the read-vs-write sibling set (insert/upsert/update/delete) makes the operation's role clear. However, the description itself never contrasts with those siblings, so the differentiation relies on the tool name rather than the text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that this is the read path contrasted with supabase_insert/update/delete, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is the phrase "allowed table," which gestures at permissions but gives no actionable conditions.

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