get_repo_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that listing is one level at a time, that omitting path returns the root, and that repeated calls navigate deeper. It does not mention output formatting, ordering, or edge cases, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and then give the key usage pattern. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 relatively simple browsing tool with complete schema description and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains how to start and how to go deeper, though it could be slightly more explicit about what the returned listing contains beyond 'files and folders'.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining path semantics ('Start with no path to see the root') and providing an example ('src'), which helps the agent correctly omit or supply the path parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('files and folders at a path inside a repo'), and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by describing directory-structure browsing rather than file content or branch listing. The file-tree analogy makes the purpose immediately understandable.

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 clear practical guidance: start at the root by omitting path, then call again with a subdirectory path to go deeper. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like get_file_content or list_branches, but the step-by-step usage context is strong and unambiguous.

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