opencode_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns ID and status but doesn't explain whether this is a read-only operation, whether it errors when no session is active, what status values are possible, or whether it requires authentication. With zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is needed.

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?

Single concise sentence, zero wasted words. Every word carries meaning about the return value (ID and status) and scope (active session). Appropriate length for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description is reasonably complete. No output schema exists, so the description must convey what is returned (ID and status), which it does. However, given the large sibling set with overlapping names (opencode_status, opencode_context, opencode_list), a note on distinction would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies here since parameter semantics is entirely moot and the description correctly doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent parameters.

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 the verb ('Returns') and the resource ('the currently active session'), specifying that it provides the ID and status. This is clear about what is returned, though it doesn't distinguish this from opencode_status, opencode_list, or opencode_context siblings which could overlap in purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like opencode_status, opencode_list, and opencode_context, there's ambiguity about when the agent should prefer opencode_active. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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