opencode_tui_submit_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether submitting triggers model execution, whether it clears the prompt afterward, whether it is reversible, or whether it targets the active TUI session. Only the bare action is stated.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the action/resource ordering is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is also part of the completeness problem.

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 and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it omits side effects, post-submit state, and interaction with the append/clear siblings. For a state-mutating TUI action this leaves real gaps.

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%, so the directory parameter and its server-default fallback are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (Submit) and resource (the current TUI prompt). The verb choice implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like opencode_tui_append_prompt and opencode_tui_clear_prompt, though it never names them or clarifies the append-then-submit workflow.

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 indication of when to use this versus opencode_tui_append_prompt or opencode_tui_execute_command, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a prompt was appended first). Usage is only loosely implied by the word 'current'.

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