supabase_start

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose what happens when the tool is invoked (e.g., starts Docker containers, initializes services, logs output). The agent has no information about side effects, required permissions, or expected behavior beyond the minimal verb 'start'.

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 that front-loades the key action and resource. While very brief, it does not contain any fluff, but could be slightly improved by adding a little more context without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the tool's action (starting a local Supabase environment) is complex. The description omits details about what exactly is started, what the prerequisites are, how to verify success, or any output it produces. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full implications.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to document.

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 (Start) and the resource (local Supabase development environment), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like supabase_init or supabase_status by focusing on starting the environment.

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 like supabase_init (for initialization) or supabase_start vs. start_coolify_application. Missing context about prerequisites (e.g., Docker running, Supabase CLI installed) or when it should not be used.

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