opencode_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It does not say what 'health' means, what happens when the server is unreachable, whether it requires any auth, or how it behaves against the default vs. a named project. For a low-risk read, that is still a meaningful gap.

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 or redundancy. It is well-sized for the tool's simplicity, though it is arguably too terse to carry any real guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey return semantics; it gestures at 'health and version' but does not describe the shape or failure behavior. For a trivial one-parameter read tool this is minimally acceptable, not thorough.

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% and the single optional directory parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default behavior. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Check) and resource (server health and version), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like opencode_status, opencode_check, or opencode_mcp_status, which sound equally applicable to a health/status query.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as opencode_status or opencode_check. The agent is left to infer from the name alone when this tool is preferable to the other status-like siblings.

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