gitlab_list_repository_tree

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, such as the recursive option example. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or other traits, but the annotations cover safety adequately.

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 extremely concise: a single clear sentence followed by three succinct bullet examples. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted text.

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 simple purpose, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers usage boundaries (not for file content) and includes practical examples. Nothing essential is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description enhances understanding by providing usage examples (e.g., using recursive=True with filtering) that go beyond the schema descriptions. This adds practical value without redundancy.

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 tool lists files and directories at a given path, which is a specific verb and resource. It provides an explicit distinction from a sibling tool ('Don't use for full-text content — use gitlab_get_file for that'), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a clear when-not-to-use directive with an alternative tool. It provides examples of usage contexts (top-level files, recursive with filter). It does not contrast with other list tools, but the given guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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