opencode_tui_open_models

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action. It does not explain side effects, whether a running TUI is required, or how the action affects state. Since annotations cover the destructive hint, the description still fails to add meaningful transparency.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it highly scannable.

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 simple TUI action with one optional parameter, the description is thin. It does not explain how the 'directory' parameter influences the action, nor does it provide any context about when to use this tool (e.g., during an active session). An agent could call it without understanding prerequisites or effects.

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 schema fully describes the 'directory' parameter (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, offering no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'open' and resource 'model selector' within the TUI context, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like opencode_tui_open_help and opencode_tui_open_themes. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opencode_provider_models (which lists models) or other TUI open tools. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion cases.

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