Configure OpenCode bridge

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that the tool does not store provider keys or edit project paths. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects such as side effects, authentication needs, or response format. The claim of listing models is unqualified.

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 very concise with two sentences, avoiding fluff. However, it could be structured better with bullet points or a clearer separation of functionality and constraints.

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 configuration tool with 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how results are returned, how to properly use parameters, or what constitutes valid input. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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%, and the tool description provides no explanation of the parameters (reuseHours, cleanupDays, defaultModel). The agent must guess their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists OpenCode models and stores bridge defaults, and explicitly mentions what it does not do (store keys, edit paths). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like opencode.run or opencode.sessions, though the configuration purpose is inferred.

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 versus alternatives. The description lacks context like prerequisites, typical use cases, or explicit recommendations. It only states what the tool does and does not do.

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