opencode_question_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether answering resumes a blocked session, whether the answer must match the number/shape of questions asked, or whether it is final and irreversible. For a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 zero filler, which is well-formed prose. It is arguably undersized for the complexity of the operation, but the sentence itself earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, only one of three parameters documented, and an unusual nested input shape, the definition leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call with confidence. More detail on requestId provenance and the answers structure is needed.

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 33%: only the optional 'directory' parameter is documented, while the required 'requestId' and the non-obvious nested 'answers' array (array of arrays of strings) are unexplained in both schema and description. The description never describes the answer format, so it 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?

States a specific verb (Answer) and resource (a pending OpenCode question), which is clear enough to distinguish it from opencode_question_reject and opencode_question_list by verb alone. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or clarify scope versus the ambiguously named opencode_ask/opencode_reply.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says a requestId must first be obtained from opencode_question_list, that only a 'pending' question can be answered, or that opencode_question_reject is the alternative. The word 'pending' is the only usage signal.

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