Run a full-stack health audit

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

The description discloses synchronous completion (~10 s), background trigger behavior, and non-destructive nature. This adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) that already indicate safety and idempotency.

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?

Three sentences with efficient front-loading of purpose, output, and prerequisites. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains audit scope, return format, requirements, and side effects thoroughly. No gaps identified.

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 single parameter (project_id) is already well-described in the input schema (defaulting to configured project). The description adds no further parameter insight, meeting the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 tool runs a full-stack health audit covering DB schema, API contract gates, backend error logs, and RLS gap detection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_backend_health by listing specific components and output (PM-readable scorecard).

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 explicitly lists prerequisites (Supabase PAT and project ref) and notes a background gate trigger condition. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with simpler diagnostic tools among siblings.

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