opencode_question_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds the concept of 'pending' and 'optionally filtered to a session', which gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format or edge cases, which are partially covered by the output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('List pending OpenCode questions') and then adds the optional filter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list operation with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It states the core action, the optional filter, and the subject (pending questions). It does not elaborate on question semantics, but sibling tools like opencode_question_reply provide context. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, which is partially addressed in usage_guidelines.

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 50% (directory has a description, sessionId does not). The description mentions 'optionally filtered to a session', which gives meaning to sessionId as the filter, partially compensating for the missing schema description. Directory is already described in the schema, so the description adds value for sessionId but does not fully explain its format or constraints.

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 'List' and a clear resource 'pending OpenCode questions', with an optional filter by session. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opencode_session_list (lists sessions) and opencode_message_list (lists messages), which have different purposes.

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 states the primary action and the optional filter but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. The context of sibling tools (e.g., opencode_question_reply) implies usage, but it is not made explicit.

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