opencode_abort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that aborting does not require the run lock and can stop a stuck run, but omits critical side effects: whether the session is permanently terminated, whether in-progress work is lost, or any permission requirements. For a destructive operation like abort, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the lock detail is added as a compact second sentence that explains a key differentiator. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the parameter's semantics and the primary use case. However, it lacks edge-case handling: what happens if there is no active session, if the session is already terminated, or if the abort fails. For a tool with a single optional parameter, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, leaving session_id completely undefined in the schema. The description compensates by explaining that a null/omitted session_id targets the active session, while a specific value targets that session. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare type information, making the parameter's role clear.

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 'Abort' with a clear resource ('OpenCode session') and distinguishes between the active session and a specific one via optional session_id. The mention of not requiring the run lock further sets it apart from siblings like opencode_sessions (which lists sessions) and opencode_run (which starts them), making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: stopping a stuck run that cannot be aborted normally because the run lock is held. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., opencode_sessions for listing or opencode_run for starting). The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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