opencode_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output (a status string) and the full set of possible values, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what triggers stale vs. waiting_input transitions, polling semantics, or whether the tool blocks/fails on invalid session IDs. The status enum partially compensates.

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 informative sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates all eight possible return values. No wasted words or redundancy. Could arguably be more structured, but for a simple status-check tool this is appropriately tight.

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 zero-required-parameter status tool with no output schema, listing all possible status values provides meaningful completeness. The enum of 8 statuses effectively substitutes for an output schema. Minor gap: no guidance on how to interpret or act on each status value, but for a read-only state query this is largely sufficient given the sibling toolset (e.g., opencode_retry, opencode_interrupt) handles follow-up actions.

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% for the single session_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'a session' but does not add detail about session_id format, optionality behavior, or what happens when omitted (defaults to active). The schema's description already covers the default-to-active behavior, so no additional value is added by the tool description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('current status of a session') and exhaustively lists all possible status values (running, idle, waiting_input, stale, done, error, contract_violated, starting). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the status enumeration makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 (checking session state before proceeding) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't state when this should be preferred over sibling tools like opencode_batch_status or opencode_health, though these are conceptually distinct enough that differentiation is implicit.

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