parse_get_object

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 only states the purpose and does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the object doesn't exist), authentication/permissions requirements, or whether include expands pointers. This lacks important context for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's effects.

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 two short sentences in Spanish, immediately stating the objective and use case. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition, earning a top score.

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?

This is a simple get operation with no output schema, and the description adequately covers the primary purpose and typical use case. However, it does not disclose error conditions or return format, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The description is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks some completeness.

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 schema provides descriptions for the nested parameters (include, objectId, className), so the parameters are well-documented at the schema level. The description text only repeats className and objectId but does not explain include. Since schema coverage is effectively high for the actual user-facing fields, the description adds little extra value, warranting a baseline 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 clearly states the tool gets a specific object from Parse Server by className and objectId, using the specific verbs 'Obtiene' and 'recuperar'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like parse_query (which queries multiple records) and parse_delete_object by specifying it retrieves a single known record.

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?

It directly says 'Útil para recuperar un registro individual cuando conoces su ID', which provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you know the ID and need a single record). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, it implies a distinction from query tools, meeting the threshold for clear context.

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