git_list_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the contextual detail 'at a revision' but does not disclose defaults (like HEAD) or the fact that recursion is off by default, which are behavior-relevant nuances.

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?

One sentence, no filler, purpose front-loaded. It earns its place without extra words, making it appropriately concise for a tool with simple core behavior.

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?

The core operation is clear and output schema exists, but the description omits optional parameters and does not explain how path/recursive affect the result. With moderate complexity and sparse param coverage, the description leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 only 25% (just repositoryId). The description hints at the revision parameter but gives no explanation of 'path' or 'recursive'. Since the schema leaves these undocumented, the description should have elaborated but does not.

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 uses specific verb+resource ('List files and directories') and clarifies scope ('at a revision'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_list_repositories and git_read_file.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no preconditions or exclusions mentioned. The description states only what it does, not why an agent would choose it over other list-related tools.

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