opencode_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description says it 'submits it with Enter,' implying an active keypress/execution action, but doesn't disclose what happens after submission (does it block? does it execute in a terminal?), whether it requires an active session, or any side effects.

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 concise sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action (sends a command or text) and adds the useful detail of Enter submission. Efficient and to the point, though it could use a bit more explanatory content.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should be self-sufficient. It tells what the tool does but misses key context: possible error conditions, whether it blocks for a response, behavior when no session is active, and how it relates to opencode_send. For a tool that likely executes arbitrary commands, this is notably incomplete.

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 100%, so both parameters (command and session_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it doesn't clarify command semantics, format expectations, or the distinction between 'command' vs 'text.' Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage and minimal added value.

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 it sends a command or text to OpenCode and submits it with Enter. The verb is clear (sends/sends+submits), but it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling opencode_send, which likely does something similar. 'Submits it with Enter' adds a meaningful detail, but the purpose is ambiguous versus a near-identical sibling name.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given the large sibling set including opencode_send, opencode_batch, and opencode_interrupt, there is no indication of when this should be preferred. No exclusions, no alternative recommendations.

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