opencode_provider_auth_methods

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the bulk-scope behavior — it returns auth methods for ALL providers rather than a single provider — which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose details like whether an active server connection is required, but with output schema present and safety fully covered by 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 8-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and no redundant restatement of the tool name appears.

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 listing tool, the combination of annotations (safety profile), a complete input schema (100% param coverage), and an output schema makes the description nearly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from auth-related siblings, which belongs to usage guidance rather than this dimension. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 directory parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and its 'all providers' claim only loosely implies that the directory parameter does not scope the results to a single provider. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 (get) and resource (available authentication methods for all providers), which distinguishes it from siblings like opencode_provider_list (providers), opencode_provider_models (models), and opencode_auth_set (setting auth). The scope qualifier 'for all providers' helps differentiate it from per-provider auth actions like opencode_provider_oauth_authorize, though siblings are not named explicitly.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as opencode_provider_oauth_authorize, opencode_provider_oauth_callback, or opencode_auth_set. The phrase 'for all providers' implies scope but does not tell the agent when to choose this over alternatives or whether it is a prerequisite before authorizing a provider.

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