opencode_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description does not disclose side effects of updates, whether changes persist across sessions, whether validation occurs, whether this is a safe read operation, or how the get behavior works or what it returns. For a tool that both reads and mutates configuration, this is a meaningful gap.

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, compact sentence that efficiently names the tool's dual purpose and the three options. No wasted words. It could be slightly more informative while still concise, but the structure is appropriately tight.

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 tool that both gets and updates configuration with 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain how get vs. update is triggered (parameter presence?), what the return value looks like for a get, or what constraints exist on values. Given the dual-mode behavior and zero schema coverage, more detail is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only lists parameter names without adding any meaning. It doesn't say whether effort_level values map to specific behaviors, what default_agent expects (name format?), or how parameters interplay (e.g., does passing a parameter mean update, and passing none mean get?). The enum for effort_level is in schema but its semantic meaning is unexplored.

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 clearly states the tool's dual purpose: get or update configuration options, and names the specific options (effort_level, default_model, default_agent). This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like opencode_set_model, which overlaps partially with setting default_model.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. For instance, opencode_set_model appears to handle model setting, yet there's no clarification whether opencode_config should be used instead or when each applies. No exclusions or context about when getting vs. updating is appropriate given both are supported by this same tool.

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