github_list_files

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the read-only action of listing, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as recursion behavior, pagination, or authentication needs. It is minimally transparent but lacks richness beyond the basic verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately concise and efficient.

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 tool is relatively simple: it lists files/directories with four parameters and has an output schema. The description covers the core action but does not address edge cases (e.g., empty path, default branch) or provide examples. It is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps, such as the behavior when 'path' is omitted.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only references 'path' indirectly, and it does not clarify the meaning of 'owner', 'repo', or 'branch'. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'files and directories in a GitHub repository path'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like github_get_file_content (which retrieves file content) and github_repository_info, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. For example, it does not explain whether this tool should be preferred over github_get_file_content for exploring a repository tree. The usage context is entirely implied.

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