opencode_file_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only notes that results are limited to 'tracked files'. It does not say whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get' but unconfirmed), what the response contains, whether the directory argument scopes results, or any auth/rate constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical endpoint is arguably dead weight since callers cannot use it, but it is brief.

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 has no output schema and zero schema coverage, so the description should explain the shape of the returned status and the role of the directory argument. It does neither, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call 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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'directory' parameter, and the description does not compensate — it never explains what the directory argument does or whether it is a repo root or an arbitrary path. The '/api/vcs/status' parenthetical is an implementation detail, not parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get VCS status for tracked files'), which is clearer than a tautology and hints at scope (tracked files only). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling opencode_vcs_info, leaving the agent to guess which VCS-related tool to use.

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 context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as opencode_vcs_info or opencode_review_changes. The agent gets only the raw endpoint reference and must infer the rest.

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