git-rebase

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that rebase rewrites commit history, can cause conflicts, and may require force push. This omission is critical for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices essential detail. It is under-specified for a complex operation, making it less useful despite brevity.

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?

Rebase is a complex operation involving history rewriting, conflict resolution, and interactive options. The description provides no information about return values, failure modes, or prerequisites, leaving the agent severely underinformed.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; for example, 'interactive' mode is not explained. Thus, no bonus.

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 action ('rebase') and the target ('onto another branch or commit'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like git-merge or git-cherry-pick, which also integrate changes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use rebase versus alternatives (e.g., merge, cherry-pick). An agent cannot determine appropriate context from this description alone.

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