Estado OpenCode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does list the behaviors (health, occupied sessions, MCP, Git status), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention authentication requirements, or describe the return format. For a status/health tool, the information is adequate but incomplete.

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 directly states the purpose. No wasted words; every part contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent relies on the description to know what to expect. The description lists the status categories but does not clarify the response structure, such as whether it returns a textual summary, structured data, or separate results per category. For a status tool, this leaves some ambiguity, though the listed categories provide a reasonable starting point.

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 covers the single parameter (directory) with a clear description. The tool description adds extra meaning by explaining when the parameter is optional (aggregated queries) and when it is required (tasks/sessions), which is not present in the schema. This goes beyond the schema baseline.

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 checks multiple status aspects: health, occupied sessions, MCP, and project Git status. The verb 'Consulta' (query) is specific, and the listed resources distinguish it from more focused siblings like opencode_mcp_status. It could be more explicit about how it differs from opencode_check, but the scope is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is about the directory parameter (aggregated queries may omit it; tasks/sessions must include it), which is parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.

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