opencode_session_todo

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. 'Get' implies a read, but it does not state whether the operation is side-effect free, what happens if the session has no todos (empty list vs. error), whether results are paginated, or what permissions are required. For a 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 no filler, which is efficient. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any usage or behavioral content.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool, and 'todo list' is largely self-describing, so minimal description is defensible. But with no output schema and no annotations, the definition leaves the return shape and error behavior entirely unstated, and the required 'id' parameter is undocumented in both places.

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 in the schema, but the required 'id' parameter has no description at all. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required id (e.g., whether it is a session ID, a name, or a path).

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 and resource: 'Get the todo list for a session.' An agent knows exactly what it returns, and it is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like opencode_session_get or opencode_session_status. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the many other opencode_session_* tools beyond the noun 'todo list'.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. It does not say whether a session id must exist, whether the session must be active, or how this differs from opencode_session_status or opencode_session_get, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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