List repository files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: default root path, ref accepts branch/tag/commit and falls back to the default branch, and the recursive behavior switch. It notes the backing API and docs link but omits return shape or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then defaults and the recursive flag, all in one dense sentence plus a docs pointer. Efficient, though the nested parentheticals make it slightly packed.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what a listing looks like; it doesn't. Otherwise, for a 4-param read tool with annotations already covering safety, it supplies enough to call correctly.

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 only 25% (just repo), so the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains path defaults to root, ref accepts branch/tag/commit with branch fallback, and recursive lists all file paths. Only the repo param itself is not covered here, but the schema documents it.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'List a folder of a Lizard Git repository ... at a ref', with the recursive variant named. An agent can tell it apart from repo_read_file by the folder-listing framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It states defaults (path defaults to root, ref defaults to branch) and that recursive:true changes the result to every file path, which is usage-relevant. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus repo_read_file, repo_commits, or repo_show.

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