opencode_file_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope ('tracked files', 'VCS changes') but does not disclose operational details such as whether untracked files are excluded or what the output structure looks like; the output schema covers the latter. This mirrors the get_calls calibration where annotation coverage yields a baseline 3.

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 compact sentence that leads with the action and resource, and the parenthetical immediately disambiguates 'status' as VCS changes. No filler or redundant information.

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, read-only, idempotent tool with one fully documented optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%; the single optional directory parameter is fully documented in the schema, including behavior when omitted. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get status') with a well-defined resource ('tracked files') and immediately clarifies the domain with 'VCS changes: modified, added, deleted, etc.' This is distinct from sibling file listing/reading tools and from the broader status tools, so an agent can tell what the tool is for.

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 description gives clear context: use this when you need VCS change status for tracked files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is sufficiently unambiguous for this simple read-only operation.

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