rebase_preview_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not explain what the preview returns, whether it has side effects on branch state, or how it relates to the real rebase. With the lower bar set by annotations, a 2 reflects near-zero added value rather than a contradiction.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the single phrase conveys no information an agent could act on, so the brevity is a defect, not a virtue.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a preview yields, and it does not. Combined with a two-parameter mutation-adjacent branch operation and no usage context, the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 100% for both agent_id and branch_id, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about parameter roles or formats, and in particular does not clarify what 'source branch to merge from' implies in a rebase context.

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?

"Preview Rebased Configuration" is essentially a restatement of the tool name rebase_preview_route; it names no resource actor beyond 'configuration' and does not distinguish itself from sibling operations such as rebase_branch_onto_main or merge_preview_route. An agent cannot tell the preview's scope, target, or relation to the actual rebase from this text.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus rebase_branch_onto_main, merge_preview_route, or create_branch_route. No prerequisites, no indication that this is a dry-run preceding an actual rebase, nothing to route the agent correctly.

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