opencode_project_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'all projects' scope and the directory targeting behavior, but does not disclose details like whether the list is sorted, whether it includes hidden projects, or what happens when directory is invalid. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that states the action and scope with zero waste. The description is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 list tool with an output schema, full annotations, and one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not explaining what the output contains (e.g., project names, paths), but the output schema likely covers that, and the description's job is not to repeat structured data.

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%, so the schema already documents the directory parameter. The description adds the context that omitting directory uses the server's working directory, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all projects known to the opencode server'), which clearly distinguishes it from project_init and project_current. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 implies a simple read-only listing use case, and the optional directory parameter provides context for targeting a project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus project_current or project_init, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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