List Repo Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds the branch optionality, which is a behavioral nuance beyond annotations, but it doesn't mention return format, recursion depth, or default branch behavior. It adds some context but not rich detail.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify what exactly is returned (e.g., file paths, directories), whether the list is recursive, or what happens when branch is omitted. These omissions could lead to incorrect usage.

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%, with both 'branch' and 'agent_id' already described. The description repeats the branch concept without adding new meaning, so it falls to the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 'List files in an agent's git repo' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_file_content or list_commits. The optional branch modifier adds useful scope.

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 when to use the tool (to see files in a repo), but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. There's no 'use this instead of X' or when-not-to-use, so it relies on the agent to infer context.

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