opencode_tui_open_themes

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already imply. It does not disclose effects on the current TUI state, whether a running TUI session is required, or what happens after the selector opens. It does not contradict the destructiveHint or readOnlyHint 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning.

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, single-action TUI tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It could mention prerequisites or side effects, but the low complexity and existing structured metadata reduce the need.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional directory parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 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 precise verb ('Open') and a specific resource ('the theme selector in the TUI'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like opencode_tui_open_models and opencode_tui_open_help, which target different selectors.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool's name and purpose.

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