rebase_preflight

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

Without any annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states the tool is non-destructive ('without starting it or changing anything') and details the categories of reports it produces, providing strong transparency beyond what structured fields offer.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence is a clear summary; the second packs several report categories into a list. Slightly dense but each clause is informative and earns 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?

The description covers purpose, non-destructive behavior, and the kinds of output, which is sufficient for a preflight check with an output schema present. It does not explicitly mention the 'repo' parameter or usage timing, but the overall context is adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'todo' and 'base' through the report list, but does not explicitly define the parameters, their types, or defaults. 'repo' is entirely omitted. This is partial but not complete compensation.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('what a rebase would do'), and explicitly states that it does not start or change anything. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rebase_start and rebase_status.

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 makes the preflight intent clear (check before rebase, without mutating), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the sibling list provides context.

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