list_files_recursive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required parameter causing 400 errors, the depth limit (0-10), and the flat tree output. Although it doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or symlink behavior, it provides core behavioral context for a read-only listing operation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/return, required parameter warning, and alternative tool. No redundancy or fluff; information is 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for invocation: return data, required parameters, error behavior, depth usage, and alternative tool. It is complete for an agent to select and correctly call this tool.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying commitHash (required, use branch name, 400 error without it) and depth (limit 0-10). This enriches parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('List all files in a repository recursively as a flat tree') and specifies return content (file paths, extensions, sizes). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'list_files' by noting it is for browsing a single directory.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: commitHash is required (with example branch name), depth parameter usage is explained with limits, and list_files is explicitly recommended for single-directory browsing.

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