supabase_list_orgs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description never confirms read-only behavior, auth requirements, or scoping. For a zero-parameter listing tool the exposure is low, so this is a modest but real gap.

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; the purpose is the first thing read and nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the essential dispatch intent. Only the absence of any auth or read-only confirmation keeps it short of full completeness.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully attaches meaning to the returned identifier ('org_id for project creation'), which is the only variable an agent actually needs to understand.

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 and resource ('List Supabase organizations'), which separates it from the sibling 'supabase_list_projects'. The parenthetical clarifies the payload it produces (org_id), though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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?

The parenthetical '(org_id for project creation)' implies the primary use case — resolving an org_id before calling supabase_create_project — but it never states when to use this versus supabase_list_projects or any prerequisite/ordering constraint explicitly.

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