opencode_server_restart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and largely delivers: it discloses disruptiveness ('every in-flight session on that process is interrupted') and that it's a forced operation. It doesn't detail timeout behavior or failure modes, a minor gap given no annotation support.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, its disruption, and when to use it. The caveat about auto-restart is front-loaded right after the purpose statement, which is ideal pacing.

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 tool the description is thorough: purpose, side effects, and usage conditions are all covered. It could mention what happens on success/failure or whether it blocks until restart completes, but given no output schema and trivial parameter surface, this is strong coverage.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries nothing heavy. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't detract from that — it correctly conveys there is nothing to configure and focuses on side effects instead.

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+resource ('Forcibly restarts the underlying opencode serve process') and clearly states its disruptive nature. It distinguishes this from siblings like opencode_kill (kill) and opencode_start (start) by framing it as a restart of the serve process specifically.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly states when NOT to use it ('Normally unnecessary — the bridge restarts automatically'), the condition under which to avoid it (when auto-restart handles wedge/fail), and exactly when to use it ('right after fixing provider auth'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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