opencode_provider_list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context by stating the output is a 'compact summary' with connection status, but does not detail response fields or directory-dependent behavior; the output schema likely covers the rest.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the alternative tool is mentioned efficiently in the second sentence. 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 read-only list operation with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly. It even routes the agent to the relevant sibling for model details.

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?

The only parameter, directory, has 100% schema description coverage with a clear explanation. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable because the schema already fully documents the optional parameter.

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 and resource: 'List all configured providers with their connection status.' It clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from opencode_provider_models, which is explicitly mentioned as the tool for viewing models.

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 gives a clear routing cue by saying 'use opencode_provider_models to see models for a specific provider,' which helps distinguish the tool from its most relevant sibling. It does not enumerate other provider-related siblings like auth methods or testing, but the core use case is clear.

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