opencode_guide

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly states the tool returns a guide and lists the topics covered, making the behavior transparent. There is no mention of side effects, which is appropriate for an informational tool, but the output format is not specified; still, this is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Two sentences deliver the purpose, content, and usage instruction with zero fluff. The key phrase 'Returns the complete behavioral guide' is front-loaded, and the final sentence adds actionable guidance.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it contains, and when to invoke it. The sibling tools are all operational commands; this guide's position as the first step is explicit. No significant information is missing.

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 has zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain any. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' with a well-defined resource: 'the complete behavioral guide for using opencode-mcp-bridge correctly.' It enumerates the guide's contents (delegation, model selection, workflow, guardrails, diagnostics), which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling operational tools.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this first before delegating a task through OpenCode,' providing a direct directive on when to use. This gives the agent a clear entry-point phrase and implies that other sibling tools should be used after consulting this guide.

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