opencode_file_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about recursion depth, ordering, error cases, or how path resolution works. '(via /api/fs/list)' is an implementation detail, not behavioral context.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The trailing endpoint reference adds little value but costs little space.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented 'directory' parameter, the description leaves significant gaps: return shape, path-vs-directory semantics, and listing behavior are all unspecified. It is too thin for a two-parameter tool with 50% schema coverage.

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 50%: 'path' is described but 'directory' has no description at all. The description does not explain the relationship or difference between the two parameters, which is the key ambiguity an agent faces. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List files and directories at a path'. It is distinguishable from siblings like opencode_file_read and opencode_find_file, though it does not explicitly name them. The addition of the endpoint is harmless but not clarifying.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as opencode_find_file (search) or opencode_file_status. The agent must infer the directory-browsing role from the name alone.

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