get_repository_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the basic action: no note on permission requirements, no warning that depth 0 means unlimited traversal and can return very large trees, and no indication of response shape beyond the phrase "hierarchical tree view".

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and scope come first. It is efficient, though it is also thin enough that brevity comes at the cost of guidance.

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 read-only tree-listing tool with fully described parameters, the core need is covered. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the returned structure or the unlimited-depth default, which matters for a potentially large result set.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents path, depth, repositoryId, projectId and organizationId. The description adds a little (path as a starting point) but mildly conflicts with the schema by calling the path "optional" when it is listed in the required array.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Displays a hierarchical tree view of files and directories") and narrows scope to "a single repository", which implicitly separates it from get_all_repositories_tree. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_all_repositories_tree for multi-repo trees or get_file_content for individual file reads. An agent must infer selection from the noun phrase alone.

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