opencode_review_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get a formatted summary' implies a non-destructive read, which is reassuring, but the description says nothing about permissions, scope, or whether the summary is a diff, stats, or a list. For a read-only tool the risk is low, so this is adequate rather than poor.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why it lacks usage and parameter detail.

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, and only 33% parameter coverage across three parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain the summary's shape or how to narrow results by message.

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 coverage is only 33%. The description implies a session scope (covering the required sessionId) but adds no meaning for messageID or directory, both of which are undocumented in the schema as well. It does not 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 clear verb (Get) plus resource (formatted summary of all file changes in a session), so an agent understands the operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling opencode_session_diff, which sounds like an obvious overlapping alternative.

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 statement of when to use this versus opencode_session_diff or opencode_file_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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