get_repository_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the recursive option and the possibility of a partial tree, but it does not mention response shape, truncation behavior, or how tree_sha affects results beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single concise sentence conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could have added sibling differentiation without becoming verbose.

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 tree-fetching tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It fails to explain the relationship with list_directory_contents or what kind of data is returned, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among similar GitHub repository tools.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, especially around tree_sha and recursive defaults.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('file structure tree'), and the phrase 'full or partial' adds useful scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_directory_contents or get_file_contents, but the tree-oriented wording makes the primary purpose reasonably clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus list_directory_contents or get_file_contents. 'Optionally recursive' hints at usage but does not state when recursion is appropriate or why this tree endpoint should be chosen over alternatives.

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