List Repository Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, recursion behavior). It is not contradictory, but does not enhance the agent's understanding beyond annotations.

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 8-word sentence. While front-loaded, it is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters. It does not earn its place as it omits crucial context.

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?

No output schema, high parameter count, no param descriptions, and no usage guidance. The description leaves significant gaps about what the tool returns and how to use its parameters. It is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any parameter meaning. For example, 'ref', 'path', 'recursive' are not described, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it lists files and directories in a GitLab repository tree, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_get_file (single file) or gitlab_search_code (content search), but does not explicitly contrast.

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. No context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases is given.

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