opencode_formatter_status

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 established. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action—it does not explain what 'status' means (e.g., enabled/disabled, configured paths), whether it reads from configuration files, or what the response structure looks like. With annotations present, the description should still provide value, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool's name.

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 redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only status tool. While it could be richer, it avoids waste and communicates the core action 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, read-only, with an output schema). The description is minimal but technically sufficient for an agent to understand the basic operation. However, it omits details about what constitutes 'status', potential prerequisites (e.g., configured formatters), or how results are presented—information that would help an agent decide whether to call this tool. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the description still feels sparse for a tool with a sibling named opencode_status.

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 schema covers 100% of the single optional parameter 'directory', including its meaning and default behavior. The description does not mention parameters at all, but because schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. No additional semantic value is added by the description.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'configured formatters', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like opencode_status or opencode_config_get because it targets formatters specifically, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify what 'status' includes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opencode_status or opencode_config_get. There is no mention of scenarios that favor this tool, no exclusions, and no reference to related tools. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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