get_file_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. It also fails to mention pagination, symlink handling, or response size limits. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, so a 2 is warranted.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists parameters in a structured block. However, it repeats the parameter names and types already present in the schema, adding redundancy. The extra explanation of defaults is valuable, so it is not wasteful, but it could be tightened by omitting the redundant arg listing and focusing on semantics. Still, it is efficient and earns its place.

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, and an output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, with no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context such as confirming it's a read-only operation, potential performance implications of recursive=true, or any limitations (e.g., max depth). These are absent. While the parameter explanations are strong, the overall context is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it safely.

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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so comprehensively: each of the five parameters is described with its meaning and default behavior (e.g., 'revision: Uses default branch if empty', 'path: Root if empty', 'recursive: Whether to retrieve recursively'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get the file tree of a repository' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_branches, list_tags, and _get_repository, as it targets the file tree structure rather than refs or metadata. No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for retrieving the file tree, which implicitly tells the agent when to use it over siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, a 4 is appropriate—clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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