opencode_path_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the operation, such as how the optional directory parameter affects the result or what the return value contains, but it does not contradict 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a trivial getter tool.

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 fully documented schema, the detailed annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the one-line description is nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks only an explicit pointer to related project/status tools, which is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%, and the single optional 'directory' parameter is already documented in the schema, including the fallback behavior when omitted. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete operation ('get') and a specific resource ('current working path of the opencode server'), so an agent can clearly tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like opencode_project_current or opencode_status, but the path resource is distinct enough to avoid serious confusion.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool rather than related getters such as opencode_project_current or opencode_status. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria without explicit help.

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