parse_get_schemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (master key) and explicitly states the output content (class names, fields, types, permissions). The verb 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, but it could have added more about response format or lack of side effects; still, it provides solid 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value, and the Spanish phrasing is direct and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (listing schemas) and lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the scope (all schemas), the type of data returned, and the authentication requirement. It could mention pagination or error conditions, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 empty object with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter is for or why it's required. Since the parameter is essentially a placeholder, the description should have clarified that no additional arguments are needed, but it doesn't.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and clearly identifies the resource as 'schemas (class structures)' in Parse Server. It also mentions the content shown (class names, fields, types, permissions), which distinguishes it from sibling parse_get_schema (singular) and other schema-related tools.

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 implies this tool is used to list all schemas but doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like parse_get_schema. It does mention a prerequisite (requires master key) but no exclusions or alternative references.

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