OpenCode System

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by outlining what each action does (e.g., 'status: health + startup probe', 'mcp_pulse: probe all MCP servers for liveness') and specifying the unified return format. It also provides concrete examples that illustrate expected usage. While it doesn't detail side effects of launch_ui, the readOnlyHint: false already signals mutation, and the description adds useful context for a multi-action tool.

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 well-structured with a clear opening line, a return format section, and examples. It is concise enough to be scannable but includes all necessary context. The examples are useful and do not feel like filler, though the action descriptions are slightly redundant with the schema.

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?

Given the tool's multi-action complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers each action, return format, and example usage. It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but for a system status/control tool with a well-defined schema, this is adequate and complete enough for an agent to select and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameter meanings are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minor value by repeating action descriptions and giving examples, but it does not provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool as a multi-action dispatcher for the opencode server environment, listing its specific capabilities (status, providers, project, launch UI, MCP pulse, config drift). It uses specific verbs and resources, and the examples reinforce usage. It distinguishes itself from more specialized siblings by presenting a consolidated system tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 when to use this tool based on the listed actions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like opencode_server_status or opencode_list_providers. Usage context is implied by the action list and examples, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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