opencode_usage

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. The description gives no indication of what this tool returns, whether it's a read-only operation, whether it makes external calls, its cost implications, or what 'model and statistics' concretely resolves to. With zero annotations and only a vague sentence, the transparency is minimal.

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, which is concise in length. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently written — 'Queries OpenCode model and statistics information' is vague and could mean almost anything. Terse without being informative.

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?

This tool takes no parameters and has no output schema. The description must carry all the burden of explaining what it returns, but it fails to do so. 'Model and statistics information' doesn't tell the agent the response shape, what metrics are included, whether it's instantaneous or aggregated, or how it differs from opencode_status. For a no-schema, no-annotation tool, this is incomplete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, meaning there are no parameters to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is genuinely nothing for the description to add here. This dimension is automatically strong because the parameter surface is empty.

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 says 'Queries OpenCode model and statistics information' which states a rough verb+resource but is overly vague. It doesn't specify WHAT model info or WHICH statistics, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like opencode_status or opencode_health which could plausibly return similar information. The purpose is too ambiguous for a tool named 'usage'.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. A 'usage' tool could overlap heavily with opencode_status, opencode_active, opencode_health, or opencode_batch_status. There is no context about what query scenario this addresses or when to prefer it over siblings.

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