Supabase RLS audit SQL

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

The annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the tool returns SQL *text to paste manually* into the Supabase SQL editor rather than executing anything, and it also supplies guidance on interpreting the results — important context the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the action and channel ('Return read-only SQL to paste into the Supabase SQL editor') come first, followed by the coverage list. It is slightly run-on with a four-item enumeration plus a trailing clause, but every clause carries distinct payload and nothing is filler.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description must characterize the return value, and it does: read-only SQL text plus how to read the results. The scope of checks is fully enumerated. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the output is a single script or multiple named queries.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no argument semantics to explain. The description correctly omits any parameter talk, wasting no space on nonexistent inputs.

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 gives a specific verb (return) and a precisely scoped resource (read-only SQL for a Supabase RLS audit), then enumerates exactly what the SQL surfaces: tables without RLS, `true` USING/WITH CHECK policies, RLS-bypassing views, and public storage buckets. It does not name the closest sibling (rls_policy_template), which creates/remediates rather than audits, so an agent can't fully route between the two from this text alone.

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 intended context is implied by the name and content — you use this to audit an existing Supabase project's RLS posture — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against rls_policy_template or vibe_security_checklist. The agent must infer the boundary between auditing and policy templating.

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