opencode_setup

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

The description says the tool can 'optionally initialize a project directory,' which implies a write or setup side effect, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. It also fails to explain what initialization does to the directory or what configuration changes might occur.

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 first states the core function and the second gives usage timing. The most important guidance is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description leaves a significant behavioral gap around 'initialize'—whether it writes to the directory, what it configures, and what exactly the status and provider configuration checks cover. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the initialization ambiguity and the contradiction with readOnlyHint make the definition incomplete for safe invocation.

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, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely connects to it via 'optionally initialize a project directory' and adds no meaningful detail about how the parameter controls initialization.

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 clearly states a composite purpose: check OpenCode status and provider configuration, and optionally initialize a project directory. It also positions the tool as the first step when starting work, which gives it a distinct role among the many focused sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage timing: 'Use this as the first step when starting work' and describes what the tool reveals. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like opencode_health or opencode_config_get, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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