opencode_integration_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive call, but it says nothing about permissions, whether results are paginated, or what happens if no integrations are registered. Beyond the verb, little behavioral context is added.

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 sentence with zero filler, stating the resource up front. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows it lists integrations on the server with an optional project directory. It leaves the return structure and any auth/scope caveats unspecified, which keeps it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

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%, so the single optional 'directory' parameter and its default are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, 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 and resource ('List registered integrations') and parenthetically disambiguates the term as plugins, which is genuinely useful since no sibling tool covers integrations. It doesn't need to differentiate from siblings because none are close, but it also doesn't say anything about scope or return shape beyond 'on the server'.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., mcp_status, skill_list, provider_list) or whether it is needed before other operations. Usage is inferable from a plain list operation, but the description provides none explicitly.

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