opencode_context

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 disclosure. It states what the tool returns (operation log and file changes) but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what the default scope is, whether it's bounded/time-limited, or how 'tracked for this session' behaves for completed vs. active sessions. With zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be valuable, but the core behavior is stated.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the functional purpose, it communicates exactly what the tool does in minimal space.

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?

With only 2 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, no nested objects, and no output schema, this is a relatively simple tool. The description adequately covers its purpose. However, it doesn't clarify what shape the returned operation log/file-changes take, which an agent might want to know for parsing the response. Overall adequate but not rich.

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% — both parameters (last_n, session_id) are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description itself adds minimal parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Per the calibration rules, this is baseline 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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, specific purpose: 'Returns the operation log and file changes tracked for this session.' It uses a specific verb (returns) with specific resources (operation log, file changes) scoped to the session. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like opencode_logs (system logs) and opencode_usage, though it doesn't explicitly compare against them.

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 usage context (session operation history) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear from the resource scope (session operations) but lacks explicit direction on when this is preferred over opencode_logs or opencode_usage.

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