opencode_project_init

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about operating on the local filesystem and supporting parallel workloads. However, it never explains what 'initialize' or 'open' actually changes on disk, leaving the destructive side effect underspecified.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second gives concrete use cases, and the third establishes the filesystem boundary. There is no filler, repetition, or schema duplication, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it acts on, where, and when to use it. The main omission is the precise nature of the destructive hint, but that is a minor gap given the annotations and simplicity of the tool.

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%, with the path parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level details; it restates the idea of a directory path and adds local vs. remote scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: initialize or open a project directory to host an OpenCode session. It clearly distinguishes itself from read-only project tools and session tools by focusing on directory creation/opening for parallel workloads. The local/remote boundary further separates it from other tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to create new empty folders or to open preexisting projects for parallel code generation workloads. It also gives a clear exclusion by saying remote server directories must be created separately. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the usage conditions are sufficient for an agent to select it.

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