github_get_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state that no changes are made. It does add behavioral context for parameter defaults (empty path = root, empty ref = default branch), but lacks detail on return behavior or side effects. The presence of an output schema may cover return format, but the description itself is minimal on behavioral traits.

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 highly concise, with a single, clear purpose sentence followed by a neatly organized Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the main action before parameter details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters and their default behaviors, satisfies the immediate purpose, and the output schema likely handles return-value details. Some minor gaps remain (e.g., no explicit mention of auth requirements or when to choose this over alternatives), but overall it is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by listing all five parameters with meaningful explanations: 'path' is the directory path (empty = root), 'ref' is branch/tag/SHA (empty = default branch), and 'session_name' indicates which GitHub session to use. The descriptions add value beyond the bare parameter names and titles.

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 'Get directory listing/tree for a repository path' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (directory listing/tree), and the scope (repository path). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_get_file (file content) and github_list_branches (branches) by focusing on the tree structure.

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 context for when to use the tool (to retrieve a directory listing/tree), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. The purpose is evident from the description and naming, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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