query_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Query data' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, making it under-specified rather than verbose.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond a basic guess.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'table', 'select', or 'filters' parameters do, their expected formats, or how they interact. For three undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.

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 'Query data from Supabase' states the action (query) and target (Supabase data), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what type of query (e.g., SELECT with filters) or distinguish it from siblings like delete_record, insert_record, update_record beyond the generic 'query' 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as when querying is appropriate compared to insert_record or update_record, or any constraints like table permissions or data availability.

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