BrowseOpenCodeDocs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (all categories and pages) but does not mention return format, whether the output is sorted, or any other behavioral traits. For a no-param browse tool this is sufficient but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by use-case guidance. No wasted words.

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 (no params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, scope, and usage. It lacks explicit return format details, but for a browsing tool the description is adequate and complete enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description need not explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies; the description adds no parameter details but none are needed.

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 provides a complete overview of the OpenCode documentation structure, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('documentation structure'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on browsing vs. searching or retrieving specific pages.

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 context for when to use the tool: to understand available documentation or help users navigate to the right section. It implies alternatives (search/get page) but does not explicitly name them or state exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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