get_opencode_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does so reasonably: 'Check' signals a read-only observation and the three enumerated data points make the behavior concrete. It does not discuss failure modes or environment assumptions, but the presence of an output schema covers the return shape.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource, and it names the three specific checks. Every phrase earns its place.

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 status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It loses a point only because it does not connect to the surrounding workflow (e.g., verifying readiness before delegate_to_opencode), which would make the context fully self-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?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify; per the zero-parameter baseline this is a 4. The description focuses on the status information returned rather than any arguments.

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 names a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('OpenCode CLI executable'), and the exact facets checked (availability, version, IDE readiness). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_antigravity_status, which target a different environment.

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 implies this is a pre-flight status check, but it does not explicitly state when to call it versus siblings like delegate_to_opencode or continue_opencode. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are given, so the agent must infer the workflow context.

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