fetchSupabaseSchema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys a read-only operation by saying 'Fetches' and indicates the return scope ('showing tables and columns'), but it does not discuss potential performance implications, authentication requirements, or whether the output includes detailed column types/relationships.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and return content.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description is complete enough. It states what the tool does (fetch schema) and what it returns (tables and columns), leaving no significant gaps for the intended use case.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information; the schema itself confirms the absence of parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetches' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the schema of the connected Supabase database', further specifying the content as 'tables and columns'. This distinguishes it from sibling schema tools for other databases like fetchPostgreSQLSchema and fetchNeonSchema by naming Supabase directly.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetchPostgreSQLSchema, fetchNeonSchema, or executeSupabaseSqlQuery. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions; the only implicit signal is the read-only verb 'Fetches'.

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