opencode_check

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already present, the description adds meaningful behavior by explaining that it uses session summary metadata instead of fetching patches, and that detailed includes response text. This helps an agent predict cost and output behavior beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds parameter guidance without redundancy or filler.

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 has five parameters, but the schema fully documents them and an output schema exists. The description explains the key usage distinction for jobId and detailed while leaving structural details to the schema. It is mostly complete, though the relationship between sessionId, jobId, and messageId could be summarized more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches jobId by explaining it enables exact durable turn correlation, which goes beyond the schema's 'Durable job ID'. The detailed note largely repeats the schema, but the jobId guidance justifies moving above baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete set of resources: current task status, pending input, todos, and file counts. It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like opencode_session_status or opencode_status.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need task status, pending input, todos, and file counts without fetching patches. It also provides practical guidance on jobId for durable turn correlation and the detailed flag, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not 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.