get_repo_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it describes the return format ('JSON with complete file tree structure, branch, and count'), performance trade-offs (recursive=False is 'faster, less data'), and default values (recursive=False, max_items=1000). It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers core operational aspects adequately.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, parameters, returns, example), front-loading key information. Every sentence adds value—no fluff—and it efficiently covers usage scenarios, parameter details, and follow-up actions in a compact format, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, return format, and example. It could improve by specifying error cases or pagination details, but for a tool with 3 parameters and clear sibling differentiation, it's nearly complete and highly usable.

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 fully. It does so by explaining all three parameters: 'repo' format ('owner/repo'), 'recursive' effect ('complete tree' vs. 'top-level overview'), and 'max_items' purpose ('Maximum number of items to return'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 specific action ('Get the full file tree') and resource ('of a GitHub repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_content (reads specific files) and list_repo_contents (browses specific directories). It explicitly mentions what it returns ('all file paths, types, and sizes'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicit guidance with 'USE THIS WHEN' and 'BEST FOR' sections, detailing scenarios like understanding project layout or finding files. It also names alternatives (get_file_content, list_repo_contents) for follow-up actions, and clarifies when to use recursive vs. non-recursive modes, offering comprehensive usage context.

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