rebase_continue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the refusal condition and explains why auto_resolve is off, which is useful. Yet it does not mention other side effects or error scenarios beyond the refusal.

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 short and to the point, with the purpose in the first sentence and additional details in separate short paragraphs. No filler words.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), so return details are covered. The description gives a constraint and auto_resolve context, but relies on knowledge of rebase_start and does not explain prerequisites or the phrase 'the other way a marker reaches a commit'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains auto_resolve's behavior and default rationale, but does not mention the `repo` parameter at all, leaving it unexplained.

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 tool carries on with a rebase and reports the next stopping point. This distinguishes it from siblings like rebase_start and rebase_status, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

It provides a refusal condition (while any path is unmerged) and references rebase_start for auto_resolve behavior, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to choose this over them.

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