create_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 only states the core action and the optional base_tree, but omits essential mutation details such as required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or impact on existing data. The docs link is external and not part of the description, so the description itself is thin for a write 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?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose with specificity, and the second is a concise docs link. Zero redundant wording, every word 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 schema handles parameter-level details well, but the description lacks broader context such as the workflow order (e.g., creating a tree before a commit), how base_tree relates to existing trees, or pointers to complementary tools like get_tree. No output schema exists, but the description could mention what a successful response contains. The docs link partially compensates.

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% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description reinforces 'tree entries' and 'existing tree' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already notes the sha/content exclusivity, so the description adds no extra semantic value. 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 action: 'Create a new tree object in a GitHub repository from a set of tree entries, optionally based on an existing tree.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_tree (retrieval) and create_or_update_file (file content) by naming the specific resource and operation.

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 when to use the tool (when creating a tree object) and mentions the optional base_tree, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on when to use base_tree versus creating from scratch, and does not reference other tools like get_tree for retrieving SHAs.

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