parse_get_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: it excludes password from output and requires master key. This goes beyond a simple 'get details' statement, though it doesn't cover error behavior or missing-user handling.

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 concise sentences in Spanish, front-loaded with the core purpose (get specific user by objectId) followed by key output and permission details. Every sentence earns its place, with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the return content (username, email, custom fields), excludes password, and notes master key requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though not-found behavior could be added.

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 0%, but the description explicitly states the operation is by objectId, clarifying the single parameter's role. This compensates for the lack of schema-level detail and makes the parameter's purpose unambiguous.

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 retrieves a specific user by objectId and specifies the returned fields (username, email, custom fields, excluding password). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_get_object (generic object retrieval) and parse_get_role (specific role retrieval).

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 use when you need details of a single user by objectId and notes the master key requirement. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over list or generic retrieval tools.

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