Ask OpenCode Advisor

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

The description mentions 'read-only' and 'local', indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose other behavioral traits such as response format, potential errors, or network requirements, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 short sentence, which is too brief for a tool with eight parameters and no other documentation. While concise, it under-specifies the tool, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 the tool has eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, parameter usage, or expected behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 description provides no information about the eight parameters (cwd, goal, paths, base_ref, question, include_diff, include_status, max_diff_chars). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter names, making it impossible for the agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 action (ask) and resource (local read-only OpenCode codex-advisor agent) and what it does (review current git changes). It is specific enough to distinguish its purpose, though it could elaborate on the nature of the review.

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 for reviewing git changes but offers no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor any alternatives. Since no sibling tools exist, the lack of differentiation is less critical, but the description still fails to provide clear usage context.

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