rebase_conflicts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses precise behavioral details: per-region two diffs from common base, omission of regions where only one side changed, and parameter effects. This goes well beyond the tool name and provides a clear mental model of the output.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers output structure, exclusions, and parameter tuning. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or fluff.

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 description is complete for a diagnostic tool: it explains what it does, how to interpret results, what is intentionally omitted, and how to vary parameters. The output schema likely covers exact return structure, and the only minor omission of `repo` is acceptable given its default and self-explanatory type.

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, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both `context` ('how many unchanged lines to show around each change') and `include_full_sides` ('for the three whole texts'), including when to increase them, effectively replacing missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Report each conflict as what the two sides did, rather than as markers.' It distinguishes itself from generic conflict listing by explaining the two-diff structure and what is intentionally omitted, making it stand out among sibling tools.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool, including when to adjust `context` and `include_full_sides`. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over `rebase_status` or `rebase_resolve`, so usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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