Responder permiso OpenCode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only states the response options and the prerequisite review step, but does not explain what happens after responding, whether the action is reversible, or any security implications.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core action and then provide a specific usage note. No filler or redundant information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description gives enough to understand the basic action but omits details about response consequences, error handling, or relationship to other tools like opencode_permissions. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

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 only 25% (only 'directory' has a description). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning—it repeats the 'response' enum values already present in the schema and does not clarify how to obtain or use 'sessionId' or 'permissionId'.

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's function: responding to a headless request with 'once', 'always', or 'reject'. It identifies the specific action and the resource (permission request), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like opencode_reply or opencode_fire.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Úsalo solo después de revisar el título y patrón del permiso' (use only after reviewing the title and pattern of the permission). This gives context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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