list_github_files

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 only says 'browse file list' without explicitly stating it's read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. While the output schema may cover return format, the description lacks safety/behavioral details like rate limits or destructive potential. Compared to the calibration example where annotations existed, here the burden is on the description and it is insufficient.

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, structured in two paragraphs plus an args list, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes to usage or parameter guidance with no filler.

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 the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and parameter semantics. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases or return formats, but the output schema likely handles that. Minor missing: no mention of pagination or max results, but for a directory listing this is acceptable. Score 4 due to slight lack of behavioral detail.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters clearly: 'url' is the repository URL from search_github results, and 'path' is the subdirectory path with empty meaning root. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's generic titles.

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 files in a GitHub repository ('浏览 GitHub 仓库的文件列表'), and explicitly says '看目录结构' (view directory structure). It distinguishes from read_github_file by noting it is to be used before reading content, and from search tools by implying it operates on a known repo.

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 workflow: after finding a repo, use this tool to see directory structure, then use read_github_file to read content. Also forbids using gh CLI or curl as alternatives. This clearly guides when to use and when not to use.

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