supabase_list_projects

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' adequately signals a read-only, side-effect-free operation over zero parameters, and '(LIVE)' hints at live-API data rather than cached state, but nothing is said about authentication needs, scope of the listing, or rate limits.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse, since the parenthetical '(LIVE)' is the only qualifier and its meaning is left unexplained.

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 is trivial (no parameters, boolean output schema presumably documenting the project list), so little description is needed and an output schema exists to cover the return shape. The only real gap is that '(LIVE)' is never unpacked, leaving the agent to guess what distinguishes live results.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no argument semantics the description could meaningfully add. The empty schema and 'additionalProperties: false' leave nothing ambiguous for an agent to misread.

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 (List) and resource (Supabase projects), so the agent immediately knows what the tool returns. The '(LIVE)' qualifier signals real remote projects rather than a local config, but it never explicitly distinguishes this from siblings like supabase_list_orgs or supabase_create_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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery entry point before supabase_get_keys or supabase_run_sql, and nothing in the description confirms ordering or prerequisites.

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