opencode_job_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'locally retained' and 'credential scope' scoping constraints, but it does not disclose behaviors like default ordering, whether results are paginated, or what happens when limit is omitted.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or repetition, and every word contributes to scoping the operation.

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, has robust annotations, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The core purpose is clear, but the undocumented `limit` parameter and the lack of explicit guidance about alternatives leave a moderate gap for an agent trying to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning about the only parameter, `limit`. It does not mention the default behavior, the effect of omitting the parameter, or how limit interacts with the listed jobs, leaving the description to compensate for the schema gap without doing so.

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 ('locally retained jobs'), and clarifies the scope ('in this OpenCode server and credential scope'). It distinguishes this from job_get, job_cancel, and job_input by clearly positioning it as the enumeration operation.

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 for when to use the tool: you list jobs retained locally in the server/credential scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the distinction from single-job operations is reasonably clear from the wording.

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