opencode_job_input

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

Annotations only indicate destructiveHint true and readOnlyHint false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key behaviors: 'Never approves automatically' clarifies that it does not auto-approve, and 'Omit responses to request MCP forms when supported, or receive manual response instructions' describes nuanced behavior. This provides meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral clauses are concise. Every sentence contributes essential information, making it highly efficient.

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 (nested responses array, permission/question kinds) and the lack of parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to structure responses or what the output schema returns. While an output schema exists, the description fails to clarify the request format, leaving an agent to guess at the meaning of fields like 'always' vs 'once' or 'reject'. The omission of parameter semantics makes this contextually insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. However, it does not mention jobId or the responses structure, nor explain the enums (once/always/reject) or the answers array. The schema itself has no descriptions, so an agent would have to infer parameter usage from names and types. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, severely undercompensating for the low schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Respond to a job's pending questions or permissions.' This identifies the specific verb (respond) and resource (a job's questions/permissions). It adds a distinctive behavior (omitting responses to request MCP forms) that helps differentiate it from generic reply tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like opencode_question_reply. It is specific enough to be understood, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides implicit usage context: use this tool when there are pending questions or permissions for a job, and it mentions a special case (omit responses to request MCP forms). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., opencode_question_reply for single questions). The guidance is present but not explicit about selection criteria.

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