opencode_review_changes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the result is a formatted/readable summary, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as scope limits, message-level filtering behavior, or any operational caveats.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and no filler. The description efficiently communicates the core action and output format without 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?

Given the read-only annotations, full parameter documentation in the schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. The main missing piece is explicit differentiation from opencode_session_diff, but that is a usage-guidance gap rather than an invocation-blocking omission.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that sessionId identifies the target session, but it adds no meaningful detail about messageID or directory beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('formatted summary of all file changes made in a session'), and the output style ('Shows diffs in a readable format'). It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like opencode_session_diff.

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 usage context is implied: use it when you want a readable summary of session file changes. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over opencode_session_diff or other change-related tools, and no exclusions are stated.

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