opencode_config_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds little behavioral context beyond a generic label. It does not say whether the returned value is the effective/resolved configuration, how the optional directory affects the result, or what happens when no project configuration exists.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the core operation is stated immediately.

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 getter with no required parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not, however, help an agent distinguish this from opencode_config_update or opencode_config_providers, and it relies on the schema to explain the directory behavior. The description alone is thin but not misleading.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter, `directory`, including that it is an absolute path, that it targets a specific project when provided, and that omission uses the server's working directory. The tool description itself contributes no parameter detail, but the schema covers this dimension completely.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get the current opencode configuration.' It is easy to identify this as a read operation on the configuration. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools like opencode_config_update or opencode_config_providers, but the 'get' wording makes the primary purpose clear.

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 word 'current' implies this tool is for retrieving the active configuration rather than updating it or inspecting providers, so some usage context is present. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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