opencode_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It's an inherently read-only listing operation ('Lists all tracked...'), which is clear from the wording itself, making it evident this is a safe non-destructive call. However, it doesn't disclose whether the listing is sorted/ordered, whether there are pagination limits, or what 'tracked' precisely means. For a read-only list operation, the declaration of what is listed is reasonably transparent.

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 sentence that states the operation, scope, and returned fields with zero wasted words. Perfectly front-loaded and concise for a zero-parameter listing 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 parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about what is returned. However, it lacks richer context such as ordering, filtering capabilities (none exist), or what 'active status' means versus the other status fields. Given low complexity, the description is adequate but slightly thin on behavioral nuance around what distinguishes 'tracked' and how the list is organized.

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?

There are zero parameters (100% schema coverage by virtue of no params existing), so the baseline is 4. The description meaningfully explains what the returned records contain (IDs, tasks, statuses, active status), which adds value beyond the empty schema even though no parameters need explanation.

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 ('Lists') with a clear resource ('all tracked OpenCode sessions') and enumerates the fields returned (IDs, tasks, statuses, active status). It distinguishes fairly well from siblings like opencode_status (which likely shows one session's status) and opencode_active, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives. Siblings like opencode_status, opencode_active, and opencode_batch_status also relate to session state, so without explicit guidance on selection, the agent may struggle to know when 'listing all' is preferred over checking a specific session.

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