Consultar modelos OpenCode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists providers/models and mentions OpenCode Go, but it does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), required permissions, rate limits, or what 'con evidencia' (with evidence) really means. This is a significant gap for a tool that queries data.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main action ('Lista proveedores y modelos disponibles') and includes the purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

As a simple listing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the core functionality but omits return format details and any behavioral caveats. It is adequate for a basic read/list tool but leaves the agent without expectations about what the output will look like or any restrictions.

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 documents the single parameter 'directory' with a clear description of what it is and when it may be omitted. The description adds no parameter-level information, so per the scoring guidance, the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and resource 'proveedores y modelos disponibles' (available providers and models), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like opencode_status or opencode_context. It also adds the purpose 'para seleccionar Flash o Pro con evidencia' (to select Flash or Pro with evidence), making the tool's intent explicit.

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 phrase 'para seleccionar Flash o Pro con evidencia' indicates when to use this tool: when the agent needs to choose between Flash and Pro models based on available providers. While it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, none of the sibling tools appear to target model selection, so the context is clear enough.

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