opencode_tui_show_toast

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling this is a mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the literal action—it doesn't clarify whether the toast is temporary, whether it blocks, or what side effects it may have. It does not contradict annotations, but it also provides no additional 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points or examples) that might aid comprehension, though that is not required for such a simple tool.

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 toast notification, the description plus schema covers the basics. But it doesn't explain the effect on the TUI (e.g., where it appears, duration), nor does it reference the output schema. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, such as how title interacts with message or how variant affects display. With full schema coverage, 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 uses a clear verb+resource pattern: 'Show a toast notification in the TUI'. It distinguishes this tool from other TUI utilities (e.g., opencode_tui_append_prompt, opencode_tui_submit_prompt) by the specific action of displaying a toast. However, it does not elaborate on what a toast is (e.g., a transient message, a status alert), leaving slight ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the TUI.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no explicit reason to choose this over other TUI display tools, though the uniqueness of 'toast' is implied.

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