Preparar contexto OpenCode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Comprueba' implies a read-only health check, which is implicitly non-destructive, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (like being in a Git repo), or error conditions. The listed scope (health, agents, providers, etc.) adds some transparency, but key behavioral details are omitted.

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 short sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core action and the second providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundant 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 the tool has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable amount of context: it lists what is checked and when to use it. It could further explain the output format or the exact behavior of the directory parameter, but the schema partially covers that, making the description adequate for most uses.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'directory' parameter well. The tool description itself does not mention parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the semantic load adequately.

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 'Comprueba' (checks) and enumerates the resources checked: salud, agentes, proveedores, proyecto, Git y sesiones activas. This gives a clear purpose, though it overlaps with sibling tools like opencode_check and opencode_status, so it doesn't strongly distinguish itself.

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 says 'Úsalo antes de delegar una tarea nueva', providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of the full 5.

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