Estado de archivos del proyecto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'obtiene' (gets) implies a non-destructive read operation, and the purpose of checking changes makes the tool's behavior apparent. However, it does not describe return format, whether a running OpenCode instance is required, or any side effects. Adequate for a simple read tool but not rich in detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource first, then provides the purpose. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the function, the scope, and the intended use case. The main gap is not describing what the returned file status contains (e.g., list of modified files, diff summaries), but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides a thorough description of the directory parameter (absolute existing path, mandatory for tasks/sessions/file operations), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The tool description adds value by linking this parameter to the task of checking changes before/after a task, giving additional contextual meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets file status ('Obtiene el estado de archivos') and adds the scope 'que OpenCode ve en el proyecto' (that OpenCode sees in the project), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like opencode_status or opencode_check. The stated purpose of checking changes before/after a task further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly provides a usage context: 'para comprobar cambios antes y después de una tarea' (to check changes before and after a task). This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Clear context, but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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