opencode_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether logs are filtered by session, whether they cap at a certain size, how 'recent' is defined, whether this is a read-only operation (which seems likely but isn't stated), or what format the log entries take. The description gives almost no behavioral information beyond the basic function.

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 short sentence with zero wasted words. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than properly concise — it's too terse to be genuinely useful. It's readable and front-loaded but at the cost of meaningful information.

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 with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to do more work. It doesn't explain the output format, the meaning or interaction of the two optional parameters, what 'recent' means, or how this relates to the many sibling tools. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and correctly invoke this tool.

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. It mentions 'recent' which loosely maps to last_n, but the parameters last_n and session_id have no semantic explanation beyond their names. The description doesn't clarify what last_n means (number of entries?) or what session_id filters (which bridge session?), and whether both interact or are mutually exclusive.

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 'Returns recent bridge log entries' has a clear verb+resource (returns logs), and the word 'recent' gives some scoping. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like opencode_health or opencode_status, and 'bridge log' is somewhat ambiguous without context about what the bridge is or which subsystem it belongs to.

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 tool vs alternatives such as opencode_health, opencode_status, or opencode_server_health. It doesn't state whether this is for debugging, monitoring, or retrieval of specific sessions. The description implies using it when logs are needed but provides no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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