List a directory in GitHub

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return field set (name, type, size, sha) and implies a non-recursive listing, but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., missing path, pagination, or whether subdirectories are included). Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the core purpose and the returned information. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 listing tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic return fields and purpose. However, it omits clarification on the 'ref' parameter, recursion behavior, and error conditions. It also does not reference any sibling tools to guide selection, which is a gap given the large sibling set. The description is functional but not fully complete for an agent operating autonomously.

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 only 33% (only 'repo' has a description). The tool description mentions 'path' implicitly but does not explain the 'ref' parameter at all. It also does not clarify default behavior for 'path' (default is '') or the meaning of 'ref'. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema.

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 action ('List files and folders') and the resource ('at a path in a repository'), and it enumerates the returned fields (name, type, size, sha). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_file (which retrieves file content) and github_list_commits (which lists commits). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool's name and context, which is not explicit.

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