opencode_project_current

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral context such as what 'active' means, whether a directory changes the target, or what happens when no active project exists. No contradiction with 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 efficient sentence with the main action front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could afford one clarifying sentence about the active-project concept or sibling distinction.

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 getter with an output schema and no required parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it leaves 'active project' undefined and does not explain how the directory parameter relates, so an agent may still need to infer context.

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 directory parameter is well described there. The tool description adds no additional meaning, 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the current active project.' It distinguishes the tool from list/init siblings by pointing at a single active project, but it does not explicitly contrast any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of opencode_project_list or opencode_project_init, nor about what makes a project 'active.' The optional directory parameter is documented only in the schema, not in terms of usage strategy.

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