rebase_todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly explains the safety check: replacements that drop commits are refused unless force, exec lines are counted, and dropping all execs silently disables the check—which is called out. This goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 longer than a simple one-line statement, but each paragraph earns its place: the lead sentence defines the tool, the second gives motivational context, and the third is a critical safety explanation. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (read/replace with nuanced safety rules), the description covers the important behavior and usage context. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. The dual read/write behavior is implicitly tied to the 'todo' parameter default of null, which is inferable from the schema.

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 explains the role of 'todo' (replacement list) and 'force' (allows dropping commits) but does not mention the 'repo' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial explanation compensates only somewhat. The format of the todo array entries is also left vague, though examples like 'exec' hint at it.

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 'Read the steps a running rebase has left, or replace them,' which clearly states the tool's dual function on the rebase todo list. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like rebase_status (which reports status) and rebase_amend (which edits commits).

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 'Worth having because' paragraph gives a concrete scenario ('a fixup turns out to depend on a commit scheduled after it') and explains the value of editing the todo list instead of aborting and restarting. It also implicitly advises when to use force. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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