rebase_finish

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool compares the branch's change to its base rather than the resulting tree, scans for conflict markers, and explicitly states that the backup tag is kept either way. This is substantive behavioral transparency, though it omits details about the 'allow_change' parameter.

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 moderately verbose but front-loaded with the main purpose. Each paragraph adds a distinct point about the tool's behavior (what must stay the same, conflict marker scanning, backup tag retention). It is well-structured, though some phrasing could be tightened.

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 covers the core behavior and logic well, but it lacks operational details such as what 'tidy up' concretely does and what 'allow_change' influences. While an output schema is present, the missing parameter semantics and side-effect information make the description incomplete for a correct and safe invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'repo' or 'allow_change' parameters at all. Most critically, it fails to explain what allowing change does, which is essential for correct invocation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the agent to guess.

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's specific function: 'Check the finished rebase against the tip it started from, and tidy up.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rebase_start, rebase_continue, or rebase_status, which have different roles in the rebase workflow.

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 clear usage context—'Check the finished rebase'—indicating it is used after a rebase has completed. It provides guidance on what to compare (the change to the base) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, which keeps it from a 5.

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