opencode_abort

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

Annotations already disclose destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds minimal context beyond 'existing' — it does not mention what happens to the session, whether work is saved, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the thin description is acceptable but adds little.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise for a simple abort operation.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits critical context: what happens upon abort, reversibility, return value/confirmation, and how to source the sessionId. The destructive annotation does not compensate for the missing usage and parameter semantics.

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 0%, and sessionId is not explained in the description. The description implies a session must exist but does not clarify how to identify or obtain the sessionId. With a single parameter, a small hint is present but not enough for confident invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Abort') and resource ('OpenCode session'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like status, review, delegate, and revise. The word 'existing' adds a necessary qualifier that it targets live sessions.

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 alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., session must be active), and no indication of when aborting is appropriate. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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