opencode_execute

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output behavior (returns diff/test context, implying filesystem changes), but omits consequential traits of an autonomous-agent tool: it can modify files in cwd, run shell commands and tests, and may run up to an hour by default. These risk-relevant behaviors are left to inference.

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 that leads with the verb and resource and ends with the output contract. Zero filler, no repetition of schema contents, and every word 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?

The schema thoroughly documents all 8 parameters and the description names the return format, which partly offsets the missing output schema. However, for a tool that launches an autonomous coding agent, the description lacks the behavioral context an agent needs: safety profile, failure semantics, repo-mutation expectations, and what the report actually contains.

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 baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The schema itself documents all parameters well (e.g., timeoutMs must stay below the MCP per-server timeout, continueSession is ignored when sessionId is set), so no compensation is needed.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Execute') bound to a concrete resource ('one bounded coding task through OpenCode v2') and names the return contract ('compact JSON report with diff/test context'). With no sibling tools to confuse it with, an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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?

No siblings or alternatives are named, and the description never states when to prefer this tool, what kinds of tasks suit it, or when to avoid it. The only usage signal is the word 'bounded,' with the task parameter's schema hinting at scope, but this does not amount to explicit when/when-not guidance.

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