opencode_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'quick/lighter' performance characterization and content scope, but discloses nothing about error behavior, though the output schema covers return structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads the action and the returned dashboard fields, the second adds the usage context and sibling comparison. Zero filler or redundancy.

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?

With a rich annotation set, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs to call it correctly. The only material gap is the unaddressed overlap with opencode_health, which the field list partially resolves but never names.

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 single optional parameter has 100% schema description coverage — the schema fully documents the directory semantics, including the omitted-parameter fallback to the server's working directory. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies per the high-coverage rule.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a quick status dashboard') with an explicit field enumeration (server health, provider count, session count, VCS info) that distinguishes it from similar siblings like opencode_health and opencode_vcs_info. Also explicitly contrasts itself with opencode_setup as the heavier alternative.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('good for at-a-glance checks') and compares against opencode_setup as the heavier alternative. However, it never explicitly addresses the closest sibling, opencode_health, which overlaps on the server-health field, and provides no when-not-to-use guidance.

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