get_repository_structure

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only fetch operation with no side effects, which is appropriate. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling for private repos, or the fact that results are limited (as indicated by the 'limit' parameter). The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 efficiently conveys the primary purpose and a key differentiator. It avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse. A slight improvement could be to structure it with more detail about return format, but it is already concise and clear.

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 the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but not complete. It omits the return type (e.g., tree of files) and any constraints like rate limits or authentication. An agent would need to infer or test to fully understand the output, which is a gap.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain defaults, relationships, or usage tips for the 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('public GitHub repository or PR structure'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by adding 'without generating a full risk report'. It could more explicitly state that the structure is a directory tree, but it is specific enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 a usage hint ('without generating a full risk report') that contrasts with the sibling tool get_review_report, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative siblings like screen_repository. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info is given.

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