Check the opencode connection

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 a key side effect: starting a local server if none is running, or attaching to an existing one. It also clarifies the output is a version and current settings report, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence delivers all relevant information: the conditional start/attach behavior and the reported outputs. There is no wordiness or redundancy; every clause adds meaning.

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 parameterless, schema-less health check tool, the description fully explains what the tool does, its side effects, and what it reports. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of version and settings adequately covers the return values. The scope is small and the description is sufficient.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings, and it appropriately avoids adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 uses specific verbs ('starts', 'attaches', 'reports') and clearly identifies the resource: the opencode connection. It explicitly states the two key outcomes—starting/attaching to a server and reporting version/settings—which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle agents, models, dispatch, or runs.

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 this is a connection/health check tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, relying on the title and context to convey its role.

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