parse_get_cloud_code_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Requiere master key' (Requires master key), which is an important auth requirement. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Lista' but not fully detailed, and there is no mention of output format or side effects. Still, the auth hint adds meaningful transparency beyond the schema.

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 three short sentences, each providing distinct value: what it lists, why it's useful, and the auth requirement. It is front-loaded and has no filler words.

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 gives the core purpose, a use case, and an auth requirement, but it omits any description of the return value or the unusual `inputSchema` parameter. Because there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make the description minimally adequate but not complete for an agent seeking full understanding.

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 input schema has one required parameter `inputSchema`, which is an object with no properties and additionalProperties false. The description provides zero explanation of this parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. Since the parameter is essentially an empty object, a simple note such as 'No arguments required' would have clarified. The description fails to compensate for the schema's opacity.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Lista todas las Cloud Functions y Background Jobs disponibles en Parse Server' (Lists all Cloud Functions and Background Jobs available in Parse Server). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like parse_call_cloud_function or parse_run_job.

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 description provides clear context for usage: 'Útil para descubrir qué funciones puedes llamar' (Useful for discovering which functions you can call). This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would secure a 5.

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