opencode_launch_ui

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

The description adds transparency beyond the minimal annotation (readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing the return format ('{success, message, data}') and explicitly labeling 'serve' as a background API server. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as long-running processes or how to stop them, which would be useful.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a usage sentence, return format, and examples. Every section earns its place with no 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?

The tool is simple (2 optional parameters, one enum, output schema). The description includes return format and examples, and the schema covers parameter semantics. Combined with the usage guidance, it is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description reiterates the enum meanings ('TUI, web UI, or background API server') and provides examples, but does not add additional constraints or formatting details beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Launch opencode interactively') and distinguishes the three modes (TUI, web UI, background API server). It also states the intended use case ('manual work'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like opencode_run_agent.

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 'Use this to open the opencode interface for manual work' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. It implies it is for human interaction rather than automated runs, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls 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.