Consultar progreso OpenCode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns' status, TODO, diff, and recent messages, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention preconditions (e.g., session existence), error behavior, or whether the session must be active. It adds some value by listing the content of the response, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that efficiently lists the key returned elements (status, TODO, diff, recent messages) with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 lists what is returned, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings and does not clarify the format or definition of 'recent' messages. Given the tool has only two well-documented parameters and a clear return summary, it is minimally complete but leaves room for more contextual information.

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%, with both parameters (directory and sessionId) fully documented in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters effectively.

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 'Devuelve' and explicitly lists the resources: estado, TODO, diff, and mensajes recientes of a session. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like opencode_status (which likely returns only status) and opencode_messages (which likely returns only messages).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention appropriate contexts, exclusions, or suggest alternatives like opencode_status or opencode_messages. The usage is only implied from the tool name and description, but no explicit guidance is given.

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