Contexto completo OpenCode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing safety and side effects. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it modifies any state, or any permission requirements. It only describes what it aggregates, not its behavioral characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the components included, with no filler.

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 the aggregated components and the purpose for planning, but it does not describe the output format or how the context is presented, which is important given there is no output schema. This leaves some ambiguity about what exactly the agent receives.

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 schema covers the single parameter with a helpful description (absolute path, optional for aggregate queries, required for tasks/sessions), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Agrega' (adds) and lists specific resources (project, agents, providers, sessions, commands, MCP, file status), clearly distinguishing it from the individual sibling tools by presenting an aggregated context for planning.

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?

It states the intended use case ('para que ChatGPT pueda planear correctamente'), indicating that it should be used when planning is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or give exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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