rebase_skip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool drops the commit being replayed, carries on the rebase, and refuses when no commit is in question (at break/exec failure). It also explains the rationale (avoiding manual git half-driving). It doesn't describe side effects like working tree state, but the core mutation is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the central action, followed by a concise rationale and a clear refusal condition. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 thoroughly covers the tool's behavior, when to use it, and refusal conditions. However, it completely omits parameter semantics (repo, auto_resolve), which is a significant gap given the 0% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema that doesn't compensate. The behavioral context is good, but the missing parameter information reduces overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'repo' or 'auto_resolve' parameters at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare names in the schema. 'auto_resolve' is particularly ambiguous and undocumented, leaving the agent without necessary information to set parameters correctly.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Drop the commit being replayed and carry on.' It precisely identifies the tool's function (skipping the current commit during a rebase) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rebase_resolve (which resolves conflicts) and rebase_continue (which continues after resolution).

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 provides explicit use cases: when a commit's change is already in the base under a different sha, or when a conflict resolves to 'the branch already says this.' It also states when the tool is refused (at a break or failing exec), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, instead referring to running git by hand, which slightly weakens the alternative guidance.

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