opencode_session_summarize

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

The description adds a useful behavioral note about the operation taking 30-60+ seconds, which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it does not explain the destructiveHint true annotation, nor does it describe any side effects or changes to the session. Given the annotations provide a baseline, the extra duration note earns a middle score.

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, clear sentence followed by a note about the long-running nature. It is front-loaded with the essential action and the warning is placed immediately, with no wasted words.

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 an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It does mention the duration, which is important. However, it omits any discussion of the destructiveHint true annotation and what consequences might follow, which could be critical for an agent deciding whether to call it. Given the existence of annotations and schema, this is a minor gap but still leaves the agent partially uninformed.

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 all parameters (id, providerID, modelID, variant, directory) already have descriptions. The description mentions 'using a specified model' but does not add any syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 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 clear verb ('summarize') and resource ('a session'), and specifies that a model is used. It is distinct from other session tools (like opencode_session_get or opencode_session_status) which are about retrieval or state, not summarization. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or why one would choose summarization over other session operations. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context to inference.

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