get_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it gets a tree, but does not mention authentication requirements, return format, error behavior, or that it's a read-only operation. The docs link provides reference but not immediate context.

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, front-loaded with the essential purpose, and includes a useful docs link without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with no output schema, the description does not explain return values or the effect of the recursive parameter (though the schema covers the latter). The docs link partially compensates, but the description alone is not fully self-contained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a phrase 'SHA1 value or ref name' which is already present in the schema's tree_sha description. It provides no additional semantic clarity beyond the schema.

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 ('Get a single tree') and the resource (GitHub repository tree), with specific scope ('using the SHA1 value or ref name'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_tree by focusing on retrieval only.

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 for fetching a tree but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.

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