opencode_question_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It does add one genuine behavioral fact — the tool may not exist on this build — which the agent would otherwise have no way to know. It says nothing about return shape, pagination, or permission requirements for a read operation, so the disclosure is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the availability caveat is parenthetically placed so it does not bury the core purpose. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema this is close to sufficient, and the build-availability warning helps. Still missing is any notion of what a 'question' contains or how sessionId narrows the result set, which an agent needs to invoke it precisely.

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 50% (directory is documented, sessionId is bare). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the undocumented sessionId and its scoping effect on 'pending questions' remain unexplained — the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List pending OpenCode questions'), which is clearly distinct from the neighboring opencode_question_reply and opencode_question_reject tools. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other list-style siblings beyond the 'questions' resource noun.

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 word 'pending' implies the natural context (check outstanding questions before replying or rejecting), and the 'may be unavailable on this build' caveat is useful operational guidance. But no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternatives are provided.

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