Listar proyectos OpenCode

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists known projects and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or output format. The basic nature of the operation makes this adequate, though not detailed.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives a usage tip. No wasted words, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and usage but does not specify the return format or behavior when no directories are found, which would be useful for a complete picture.

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 covers the only parameter (directory) with a complete description (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 lists projects known to OpenCode ('Lista los proyectos que OpenCode conoce'), with a specific verb and resource. It provides a use case ('orientar una tarea cuando no se tenga claro el directorio') but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like opencode_sessions or opencode_status.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: to orient a task when the directory is unclear. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level criteria.

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