Github List Repository Tree

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the default is one-level deep, recursive changes that, each entry contains specific fields, and the truncated flag indicates GitHub's cap cannot be widened by paging. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 tightly packed sentences lead with the core action, then describe the entry shape and the truncation caveat. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers default depth, recursion, entry fields, and the truncation limitation, so an agent can call it correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema already documents ref, path, and recursive with clear descriptions, covering 60% of parameters. The description reinforces ref and recursive but adds little beyond what schema descriptions already say; repo_owner and repo_name are self-evident from names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists a repository's tree at ref'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like github_get_repository_file, github_list_releases, and github_list_tags by naming the exact object being listed and the default depth behavior.

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 gives clear operational context—list a tree at a ref, one level deep unless recursive—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as github_get_repository_file. There are no exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance, leaving the choice mostly implied.

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