opencode_tui_open_sessions

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. It does not say what 'opening' a selector does — whether it is fire-and-forget, whether it returns the chosen session, whether it requires an attached TUI, or what happens if none is present. Only the surface action is disclosed.

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. It is appropriately sized for the little it says, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 no param detail added, the description should explain the interaction model (does it block, does it return a selection, does the TUI need to be attached). None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the call's effect.

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 100% — the single 'directory' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its optionality and default. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('open') and resource ('the session selector in the TUI'), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from the sibling TUI panel openers (open_help, open_models, open_themes). It does not explicitly note that differentiation, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus opencode_session_list or the other open_* TUI tools, and no stated preconditions (e.g., a TUI/server must be running). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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