opencode_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that a session is created as a side effect and that the call returns the AI response synchronously (implying it blocks). It says nothing about session persistence, timeouts, or auth requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler; the colon-separated step list efficiently conveys the composite flow.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with 11% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. Neither the parameter semantics nor the behavioral profile (what session is created, whether it persists, blocking/timeout behavior) is covered.

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?

Nine parameters with only 11% schema description coverage (just 'directory'), and the description adds no meaning for agent, format, system, modelID, variant, providerID, or title. It does not compensate for the schema gap despite that being the description's job here.

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 specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('OpenCode') and enumerates the internal steps (create a session, send a prompt, return the AI response), which distinguishes it as a one-shot wrapper rather than the raw session/message primitives. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it replaces, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 phrase 'in one step' hints at convenience versus multi-step alternatives but never states when to choose this over opencode_session_create + opencode_message_send, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent still has to guess whether this is preferred or merely a shortcut.

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