opencode_vcs_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the specific VCS data returned (branch, remote, status), which goes beyond the generic read-only hint. It does not contradict 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?

A single, efficient sentence that states the verb, resource, and key outputs in a compact form. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with an output schema (which covers return values), the description plus the schema fully specify what the tool does, how to target a directory, and what information is returned. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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, which explains its absolute-path requirement and fallback to the server's working directory. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond echoing 'current project', so this is adequate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('VCS info for the current project') and enumerates the key data fields (branch, remote, status). This clearly distinguishes it from similar-looking siblings like opencode_file_status (file-level) and opencode_status (likely broader project status), so an agent can select it correctly without opening its schema.

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 states what the tool does and that it applies to the current project, with the directory parameter allowing targeting another project. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to opencode_file_status for per-file status or opencode_status for a broader snapshot. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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