opencode_server_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what fields are reported (pid, port, alive, HTTP-healthy, recovery-in-progress) which is informative, but it doesn't describe the response format, potential failure modes, or whether this is a safe read-only operation. The field enumeration adds value but doesn't fully characterize behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, enumerates the key output fields, and ends with the critical sibling distinction. Every element earns its place with zero waste.

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, read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the output fields and disambiguates from the key sibling. It could theoretically note whether this operation has side effects (it does not appear to), but given the tool's simplicity and the strong field enumeration, it's close to sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters in the schema, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's detailed field list (pid, port, alive, HTTP-healthy, recovery-in-progress) effectively communicates what the output contains, which is the most relevant semantic information for a parameter-less tool.

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 ('reports') and names the resource (the opencode serve process itself), listing concrete output fields (pid, port, alive, HTTP-healthy, recovery-in-progress). It actively distinguishes itself from the sibling opencode_health, which reports a single session's state, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 distinguishes this tool from opencode_health by contrasting 'serve process itself' vs 'a single session's state', giving clear context for when to choose it. However, it doesn't name additional alternatives or explicitly say when NOT to use it, leaving a slight gap despite the strong differentiation.

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