Github List Repository Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 'truncated' field behavior and that paging cannot widen the cap, plus the entry field list. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent handle edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 main purpose, but the cryptic '#409' reference and the workflow line about github_get_skill are tangential and may distract an agent. These additions do not clearly support tool usage and add noise without earning their place, so it is not as tight as it could be.

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 listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main behavior, the truncation edge case, and entry contents. It omits error handling and rate limits, but those are typically not required for such a straightforward tool, and the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 60% (3 of 5 params have descriptions). The description reinforces the meaning of 'recursive' and 'ref' but does not add details beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify repo_owner or repo_name, but those are conventional and obvious from the tool name. Overall, it adds marginal value over the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists a repository's tree at a given ref, with a clear one-level default and optional recursive behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like github_get_repository_file (which fetches a single file) and github_get_pr_diff (which returns diffs), so an agent can easily tell this is the tree-listing tool.

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 usage by describing what it does but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The workflow line about github_get_skill('pr-analysis') is not directly about this tool's usage context, so it provides no alternative routing. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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