opencode_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the 'compact' nature of the review and the requirement of an existing session, which provides some behavioral detail without contradicting annotations.

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 that gets straight to the action with no filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves questions about parameter usage and the exact nature of the review output, making it not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 the description does not explain the 'detailed' boolean or the optional 'sessionId' parameter. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify whether sessionId is required (despite the schema showing 0 required) and what 'detailed' does beyond the implicit contrast with 'compact'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('compact file/test review'), and it implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like opencode_status or opencode_revise by focusing on review output. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or compare to them.

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 phrase 'for an existing OpenCode session' provides a clear context that the session must already exist, implying this tool is not for creation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over siblings, nor any when-not-to-use exclusions.

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