supabase_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only Management API call' largely restates what structured data provides. It adds the useful note that this is the Management API (as opposed to data-plane SQL tools), but says nothing about auth requirement, error behavior, or latency.

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?

Two short sentences with the verb+key first and the read-only classification second. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple single-entity read with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is adequate. No output schema exists, but describing return shape is not strictly required; noting what fields come back or what happens on an unknown ref would be the only enhancement.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents project_ref, the legacy ref alias, api_key, and access_token. The description only echoes project_ref, adding no format, default, or precedence guidance for the legacy aliases; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one Supabase project') plus the lookup key ('by project_ref'), which clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like supabase_list_projects. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but an agent can still tell what it retrieves.

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?

'Get one ... by project_ref' implies the use case (fetch a single known project rather than enumerate), but no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-supabase_list_projects guidance is given. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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