opencode_find_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a real environmental limitation (unavailability on 2.x servers), which is genuine value-add. It says nothing about case sensitivity, regex vs literal matching, pagination, result limits, or output format, leaving substantial behavioral gaps for a search 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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the caveat following. No filler or redundancy; only minor deduction for the slightly awkward 'NOTE:' framing.

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 0% schema description coverage on two parameters, the definition should explain parameter semantics and return behavior. The unavailability note is helpful but the description remains incomplete for correct invocation of a search tool.

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%, so both 'pattern' and 'directory' are undocumented in structured form. The description mentions 'text patterns' and 'project files' but never explains whether pattern is a regex or literal string, nor how 'directory' scopes the search or what its default is. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Search text patterns in project files'. This is distinct from siblings like opencode_find_file and opencode_find_symbol, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them. The core purpose is unambiguous.

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 note that the 2.x server has no /api/fs/find route and the tool 'reports unavailable' is an important usage caveat that tells the agent when this tool will fail. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., opencode_find_file or opencode_session_search) and gives no positive guidance on when to prefer this over sibling search tools.

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