opencode_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'write' adds no new behavioral insight beyond what is structured. It does not disclose side effects, persistence, error behavior, or rate limits. No additional value is provided over the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and target, and every word earns its place. This is appropriately concise for a simple logging endpoint.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the mutation/destructive nature, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can invoke the tool correctly by relying on the schema. However, it lacks any usage context or behavioral nuance beyond what structured fields provide, so it does not exceed the minimum viable completeness.

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%, meaning every parameter (service, level, message, extra, directory) is documented with its own description. The tool description does not reference any parameters, but the schema fully carries the semantic load, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('write') and resource ('log entry to the opencode server'). It clearly identifies the tool's function and is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which are logging tools. The purpose is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

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, when not to use it, or any alternatives. There is no context about its intended role (e.g., diagnostics, auditing) or any prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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