rebase_abort

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the primary effect (abandonment) and one consequence (restoring moved-aside items), which is helpful. However, it omits details such as error conditions when no rebase is active, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects on uncommitted changes, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It states the action and its direct consequence in an efficient manner, fully earning 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?

An output schema exists, but the description is minimal for a destructive operation. It does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., that a rebase must be in progress), potential errors, or what happens to the repository state beyond putting things back. The presence of sibling rebase tools suggests a richer context, but the description itself provides limited completeness.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'repo' with a default of '.', and the description does not mention it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but the parameter is self-explanatory from its name and default. The schema already conveys its meaning, so the description adds no additional value, making a mid-range score 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 uses the specific verb 'abandon' with the resource 'rebase' and adds effect context ('put back anything that was moved aside'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rebase_continue or rebase_skip, which imply progression rather than cancellation.

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 phrase 'Abandon the rebase' clearly implies the tool is for canceling an in-progress rebase, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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