opencode_session_status

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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral scope of returning statuses for all sessions, which is useful but does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or how the optional directory affects scope.

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?

A single sentence delivers the core purpose with no filler. The phrase 'all sessions (running, idle, etc.)' is front-loaded and communicates scope and output type effectively.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It could clarify whether 'all sessions' means all server sessions or sessions in the optional directory context, but the annotations and schema fill most of the remaining context.

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 description covers 100% of the single optional 'directory' parameter, explaining its behavior and default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but because the schema already handles parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('status for all sessions'), and gives example status categories ('running, idle, etc.'). It is distinguishable from session_get and session_list because it emphasizes aggregate status rather than individual session details or metadata, though it does not explicitly name a sibling distinction.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs status across all sessions rather than one session. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or references to alternatives like opencode_session_list, opencode_session_get, or opencode_sessions_overview, leaving some selection ambiguity among closely related sibling tools.

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