opencode bridge diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful context: it specifically reports version info, credential count, model availability, and data location. The note about '0 credentials' not being a failure and referencing antigravity_status's update notice enrich the agent's understanding beyond the structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the note about credential interpretation at the end, which is logical. It is concise overall, though the second sentence is a dense run-on list that could be more scannable. Still, every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given there are no parameters, an output schema is present, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool checks, how to interpret a potentially surprising result (0 credentials), and even links to the related antigravity_status notice. Nothing an agent needs to call or understand this tool is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters since there are none. It instead uses the space to describe behavioral details, which is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Report diagnostics for the opencode bridge setup.' It enumerates exactly what is reported (bridge version, opencode presence, credential count, model IDs, data location), which fully clarifies the tool's scope. The resource 'opencode bridge' naturally distinguishes this from sibling status tools for other bridges.

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 makes clear this is a read-only diagnostic tool by noting it 'spends no quota,' which signals when it is safe to invoke. It also provides interpretive guidance that '0 credentials' is not a failure, helping the agent judge results correctly. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, but the tool name and scope make that obvious.

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