opencode_shell_execute

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Run a shell command' is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or reversibility. It doesn't go beyond what annotations convey.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, delivering the core action efficiently.

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?

Despite a complete schema and rich annotations, the description omits usage context like when to choose this tool, potential side effects beyond the annotation, or interaction with the session. For a destructive operation, more guidance would be expected, but the minimal description leaves an agent without enough context to decide when to invoke it.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain them. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, so this is appropriate.

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 clear verb 'Run' and resource 'shell command through the opencode session', making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like opencode_command_execute or opencode_run, which also execute commands, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no clue about selection criteria among the many execution-related siblings.

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