review_rebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions three actions but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., repository modification), prerequisites (e.g., existing rebase for continue/abort), or idempotency. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action constraint is placed in the second sentence, which could be front-loaded, but overall it is efficient and clear.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context: what happens on each action (start vs continue vs abort), error conditions, and side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that action must be 'start', 'continue', or 'abort', but does not describe task_id beyond its name. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 'Start, continue, or abort a rebase of the task branch onto its base branch.' This provides a specific verb (start/continue/abort) and resource (rebase), distinguishing it from sibling tools like review_merge or review_conflicts.

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 lists the three possible actions, implying usage for rebase operations, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., review_merge). It does not state when not to use or provide context for choosing among the sibling tools.

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