supabase_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only Management API call' largely restates structured data. The phrase 'Management API' adds a little context about which surface is being hit, but auth mechanics (legacy api_key vs access_token fallback) and pagination/result-size behavior are unaddressed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the read-only trait placed second. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is largely redundant with the annotations.

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 no output schema, the description should sketch the shape of the returned project list (ids, names, org membership) and any pagination limits; neither is covered. Adequate for a low-risk read-only lister, but not complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (api_key, access_token, organization_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no interpretation of its own — notably nothing about when the organization_id filter matters — so the 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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (Supabase projects) plus the visibility scope ('visible to the connected Supabase account'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the neighboring supabase_get_project, but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable from the name and verb.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can guess this is the discovery step before supabase_get_project or supabase_list_organizations, but the description never says so or names an alternative. No conditions for using the organization_id filter are given.

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