repository_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not. It does disclose the backing API (Git tree API), implying a live GitHub call and suggesting truncation via 'bounded', but it never explains what 'bounded' means (depth cap, result cap, truncated flag), whether authentication is required, or what is returned. Return shape is undisclosed and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs to know the ref semantics, repository format, and what 'bounded' limits. None of that is present, so the definition is not sufficient to call the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters and does not. It implicitly maps to 'repository' but never states the expected format (owner/repo slug), and 'ref' is entirely unaddressed — no mention that it selects a branch, tag, or commit SHA, or that omitting it defaults to the default branch.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('repository paths') and names the upstream source ('GitHub's Git tree API'), so the agent knows this is a remote tree listing rather than a file read. The word 'bounded' is undefined and no sibling tool (repository_inspect, repository_read_file) is referenced to sharpen the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over repository_inspect or repository_read_file, which sit in the same family. There is no statement of prerequisites, no condition that selects this tool, and no exclusions.

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