opencode_session_reviewReview a coding session's messages, file changes, and todo items by chaining API calls into a single overview.
Review a session's messages and file changes.
Chains GET /session/{id} → GET /session/{id}/message → GET /session/{id}/diff → GET /session/{id}/todo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it provides strong transparency by spelling out the ordered chain of GET endpoints: session, message, diff, and todo. This makes the read-only, multi-call nature clear, though auth requirements and failure behavior are not disclosed.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the endpoint chain is compactly listed in one line, making the behavioral flow immediately readable.
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?
The description captures the full endpoint flow and the single required input, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. It could add guidance on when to prefer this over agent_review or agent_diagnose, but as a standalone review action it is reasonably complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. The path template 'GET /session/{id}' embeds the single parameter and conveys that session_id is the session path identifier, which is enough despite not specifying format or length.
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 names a concrete operation—'Review a session's messages and file changes'—with a clear resource and outcome. The GET /session/{id} chain reinforces the exact scope, and the session-scoped phrasing distinguishes it from sibling agent_* review/diagnose tools.
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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are provided. The description only implies this is for reviewing a session, which does not help an agent choose between this and similarly named tools like agent_review or agent_diagnose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.