opencode_tool_ids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'experimental' qualifier, which is useful context about stability. However, it does not elaborate on what 'tool IDs' are or how they relate to other tools, so it adds only marginal behavioral insight beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant wording, and the experimental caveat is appended efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema and a single optional parameter, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It does not mention when to use it, but that gap is captured in usage guidelines. The description's note that the IDs are 'for the LLM' implies their utility, and the experimental flag warns of instability. Overall, nothing critical is missing for a basic read-only discovery tool.

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 (100% coverage), including its type and purpose. The description adds no additional meaning or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available tool IDs'), and clarifies the audience ('that the LLM can use'). It is unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling tools; even though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, the purpose is precise and self-contained.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool should be preferred over other discovery tools like opencode_tool_list or opencode_provider_list. An agent would have to infer its utility.

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