supabase_gen_types

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the outcome ('generate types') without explaining side effects (e.g., file overwriting, network calls, authentication requirements, or whether it connects to a remote database). This is insufficient for an agent to assess safety.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action. Could be improved by adding a brief usage note, but for its length, it is compact.

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?

Given the simple input schema (1 optional param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description could be more complete. It fails to explain the context (e.g., requires a linked Supabase project, generates types based on local schema if supabase start is running, or reads from remote). The agent is left with significant unknowns.

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% (1 parameter with full description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 action ('generate') and the resource ('TypeScript types from database schema'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings, none of which mention type generation. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., for the linked Supabase project).

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a linked project), typical workflow position (e.g., after schema changes), or when not to use it (e.g., if types are already up-to-date). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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