get_file_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the repository must be 'indexed' (a key behavioral constraint) and describes optional filtering. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the file tree returns (e.g., hierarchical structure), potential rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., if repo isn't indexed). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the file tree of an indexed repository') and adds qualifying information ('optionally filtered by path prefix'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering but lacks details on return format, error handling, and behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer these from context, leaving room for misinterpretation. A score of 3 reflects this borderline completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('repo' and 'path_prefix') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the optional filtering concept ('optionally filtered by path prefix') but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'file tree of an indexed repository' with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_outline' (which likely provides different structural information) and 'get_symbol' (which focuses on specific symbols rather than file structure). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_repos' which lists repositories rather than their file trees.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'indexed repository' (suggesting the repo must be indexed first) and 'optionally filtered by path prefix' (suggesting when filtering is appropriate). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_file_outline' or 'search_symbols', nor does it specify prerequisites beyond the repository being indexed.

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