opencode_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool writes to two locations (workspace and user home profile), which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like potential overwriting of existing guideline files, whether it's idempotent (safe to re-run), or whether it modifies user home beyond the profile directory.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action. It communicates purpose and destination efficiently. Not verbose, though it could note whether the operation is idempotent or destructive without much additional length.

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 setup tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what it does and where. However, for a setup tool that writes to persistent storage, more context would help: is it safe to re-run? Does it overwrite existing files? What happens on failure? These are notable gaps for an operation with persistent side effects.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially, since the schema is empty), there are no parameters to document. The description stands on its own without needing to explain any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is high since there's nothing lacking.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('writes OpenCode subagent guidelines to local workspace and user home profile directory'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and where it writes. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the 'One-time setup' framing and unique action make it reasonably distinct.

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 'One-time setup' phrase gives implied usage context - this is a setup task, not a recurring operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention that it should likely be run before other opencode tools become functional. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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