opencode_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating that it gathers multiple distinct pieces of context in a single call, which goes beyond the bare annotation data. Minor gap: it doesn't mention potential latency or external calls, but the annotations make this less critical.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and scope, listing concrete elements; the second gives a practical usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no destructive actions, and a full output schema provided externally. The description tells the agent exactly what context is retrieved and when to use it. Combined with the annotations and schema, nothing an agent needs for correct invocation 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% — the only parameter, 'directory', is fully described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, but per the rubric baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema thoroughly documents parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('full project context') with enumerated components (current project, path, VCS info, config, agents). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing 'one call' aggregation, which contrasts with granular tools like opencode_project_current or opencode_vcs_info.

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?

It explicitly gives a use context: 'Useful to understand the current state before starting work.' This implies the appropriate timing and intent. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the notion of combining multiple lookups into one call inherently suggests a preferred approach for a consolidated overview.

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