Get Repository Structure

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says it 'returns' the structure, offering no details on output format, handling of large repos, hidden files, or any operational caveats. The lack of an output schema makes this gap more significant, as the agent cannot infer return structure.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and adds a relevant use case, making every word earn its place.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and no nested objects, the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what the returned structure looks like (e.g., tree vs. list, JSON vs. plain text). It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete information for a tool that returns potentially complex data.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, repoPath, with 'Github repository base path'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 returns the directory and file structure of the git repository, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_git_log or read_local_file, which focus on logs or file contents.

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 phrase 'Useful for architectural documentation' implies a usage context, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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