opencode_get_health

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

With annotations already declaring read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds value by specifying that it returns basic connectivity status and uptime, and by providing the return format. No contradiction exists, though auth requirements and error behavior are not mentioned.

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 very concise and front-loaded. It provides the essential purpose, return format, and an example in a well-structured layout without redundant text. The example is trivial but does not detract.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only health check tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose, return values, and example usage, covering all necessary aspects for an agent to invoke 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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously), and the baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 that the tool performs a health check on the opencode server and returns connectivity status and uptime. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'opencode_server_status', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies use for health checking but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The context is clear but lacks actionable usage direction.

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