get-object

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention return behavior (e.g., what happens if the object is not found), side effects, or permission requirements. The phrase 'by its ID' merely repeats parameter information already in the schema, adding no extra behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant words, filler, or unnecessary details, making it exceptionally efficient.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a simple single-object retrieval, but it lacks contextual completeness. It does not mention return format, error conditions, or how it relates to query-objects for list retrieval. The absence of an output schema and annotations increases the need for additional context that is not provided.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters (include, objectId, className) with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve a single object by its ID from a Parse class.' It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like query-objects (which fetches lists) and get-current-user (which targets the current user). The phrasing directly states the scope and operation.

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. It does not mention 'Use this when you have an objectId' or exclude cases where query-objects would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over siblings.

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