get_file_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It adds behavioral details such as the output being an ASCII tree and the optional subdirectory scoping, which go beyond the raw name. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, mention authentication, or describe behavior for invalid paths — though 'get' implies a read action.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object, with no superfluous words. Every part earns 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the output format (ASCII tree), the target (repository), and the optional scope. Minor aspects like ordering, hidden-file inclusion, or invalid-path behavior are not covered, but the tool's simplicity keeps these from being critical gaps.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (repo as owner/repo and path as subdirectory scope), giving 100% schema coverage. The description's phrase 'optionally scoped to a subdirectory' mirrors the path parameter's optionality but does not add substantive new meaning on top of the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('ASCII directory tree'), and clearly indicates the repository context and optional subdirectory scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_file or search_code, which operate on file contents rather than the directory 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 makes the primary use case clear (obtaining a directory tree, optionally scoped to a subdirectory), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as list_source_files or search_file. There is enough context to infer usage, but no exclusions.

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