Revisar cambios 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 disclosing behavior. It states that the tool retrieves session, diff, and file status, which implicitly reads data without modification, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions, or potential side effects. Some useful context is given (the review purpose), but more explicit transparency about safety and limitations would be needed for a higher score.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core function, the data retrieved, and the purpose. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it gets) is front-loaded. No redundancy or 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 adequately covers the tool's main purpose and output (session, diff, file status) for a simple two-parameter tool. It lacks an output schema, but the description itself lists what is returned. It could be more complete by mentioning whether it is read-only or how to interpret the diff, but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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%, and both parameters (directory and sessionId) have detailed descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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 'Obtiene la sesión, diff y estado de archivos' (gets the session, diff, and file status) with a specific purpose 'para revisar el resultado antes de aceptarlo' (to review the result before accepting it). This distinguishes it from siblings like opencode_status or opencode_check by focusing on review before acceptance, and the verb 'obtiene' (gets) clearly identifies it as a retrieval operation.

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 clear context: use this tool to review the result before accepting it. It implies the appropriate timing (pre-acceptance) and the type of operation (review), but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since this guidance is clear and helpful, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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