list_repo_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns ('names, paths, types, sizes for each item'), its read-only nature (implied by 'List'), and provides an example. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a GitHub API tool.

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 guidelines, workflow, parameters, returns, example) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some sections, but the information density is high and the structure aids comprehension.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. The example further clarifies usage. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of authentication or rate limits, which are common for GitHub API tools.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed parameter documentation in the 'Args:' section with clear explanations, format examples ('owner/repo'), and usage notes (empty string for root). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, fully explaining both parameters.

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 ('List contents of a directory') and resource ('in a GitHub repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_repo_tree (overall structure) and get_file_content (individual files). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with clear scope.

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 explicitly includes 'USE THIS WHEN:' and 'BEST FOR:' sections that specify when to use this tool ('browse or explore the structure of a repository directory'). It also provides a detailed 'Common workflow' section that positions this tool among alternatives like github_repo_search, get_repo_tree, and get_file_content, giving clear contextual guidance.

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