get_repository_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'displays' (a read operation) but discloses no behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Lacks detail on tree structure representation or depth constraints beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. No extraneous words, and the structure is efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or how the tree is represented (e.g., nested JSON). Depth limits (0-10) are only in the schema, not described. Incomplete for a moderately complex tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra value by mentioning 'starting from an optional path' but does not elaborate on other parameters like depth or the default values. Baseline 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 displays a hierarchical tree view of files/directories within a single repository from an optional path. It uses specific verbs and resource terms, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_content and get_all_repositories_tree.

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 implies usage for a single repository but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_all_repositories_tree, nor provides when-not-to-use guidance. No explicit context for exclusion.

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