opencode_shutdown

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: the shutdown is 'graceful,' returns a structured result, and requires confirm=True to execute. The return format and examples are additional behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail side effects on active sessions or operations.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose, return format, and two examples. Every element is useful and directly supports invocation, with no redundant text or unnecessary detail.

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 simple shutdown tool with two parameters and an explicit output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return format, and parameter usage. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases (e.g., what happens if confirm=False), but the schema already states that, making the tool adequately complete for its simplicity.

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 explains both parameters. The description reinforces this with examples (opencode_shutdown(confirm=True, reason="maintenance window")) but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Shut down this MCP server process gracefully.' It uses a specific verb ('shut down') and resource ('MCP server process'), making the function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like opencode_server_status or opencode_get_health.

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 the tool is for terminating the server but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The example with confirm=True/False hints at the safety mechanism, but no direct guidance on context or prerequisites is given.

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