Ask OpenCode Advisor

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

The description mentions 'read-only', implying no destructive side effects, but provides no further behavioral details such as output format, required dependencies (e.g., git repo), or error conditions. With no annotations, this is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 sentence, which is concise and to the point. However, it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing what the advisor does) without becoming overly verbose.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the review process, expected output, or parameter interactions, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without prior knowledge.

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 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the 8 parameters. The parameter names give some hints, but the description does not clarify their types, constraints, or when to use each, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool asks a read-only advisor to review current git changes. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_opencode_planner and get_opencode_task, which focus on planning and task retrieval respectively.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and description alone.

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