opencode_agent_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the output content (names, descriptions, modes), which is useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as scope limitations, pagination, or side effects beyond what annotations already cover.

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 wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the output fields efficiently.

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?

For a simple list tool with a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotation profile and a fully documented optional parameter, the description fully explains what the tool returns. The schema covers the directory parameter, and annotations cover behavior, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'directory' parameter, which is fully described in the schema. The tool description does not mention this parameter or add any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('agents'), and explicitly states the returned content (names, descriptions, modes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools like opencode_command_list, opencode_tool_list, and opencode_provider_list by naming 'agents' as the target.

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 context is clear: this tool is for listing available agents. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose itself signals its appropriate use relative to other list tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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