rebase_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It adds useful context about the `head_is_replaying_commit` field and how it differs from git's output, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens if no rebase is in progress, or any error conditions. This leaves safety and edge-case behavior undisclosed.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and a key output detail. No redundancy with the schema or titles.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It gives enough context for a developer to understand when to invoke it, but it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., no rebase in progress). Overall, it is a solid but not exhaustive description.

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?

The description mentions `repo` only as part of the resource phrase ('in `repo`') and does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or default behavior. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by clarifying that repo defaults to '.' (current directory) or what values are acceptable.

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 the specific verb 'Report' with the resource 'the rebase in repo', clearly distinguishing this status tool from sibling action tools like rebase_amend, rebase_continue, and rebase_resolve. The first sentence unambiguously states what it does.

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Call this before amending, continuing or resolving,' naming the exact sibling actions that should follow. It also explains the unique value of the `head_is_replaying_commit` field, which helps the agent know when to use the tool.

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