check_supabase_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'check health' without explaining what health means, which services are checked, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. This is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is nearly a tautology of the tool name. It does not provide additional structure or information beyond the name, making it under-specified.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no parameters. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., status codes, JSON structure) or any context about how the health check works. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. However, the description only adds minor clarification over the name (adding 'all services'), so it does not significantly enhance semantic understanding. Score 3 reflects adequate but not exceptional value.

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 states the tool checks health of all Supabase services, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other operations like deploy, delete, or execute SQL, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar diagnostic tools (e.g., supabase_status).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other health-check or status tools in the sibling list. It doesn't mention prerequisites, caveats, or when not to use it.

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