opencode_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not say whether the entry is persisted or ephemeral, whether it requires an active session/project, what effect each severity level has, or whether it returns anything. Only the minimal mutation intent ('write') is conveyed.

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 that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

This is a mutation tool with five parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do more than one sentence. Nothing about side effects, required context, or parameter meaning is covered.

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 only 20% (just the optional 'directory' parameter), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It never explains 'service', 'message', the severity enum, or the nested 'extra' object, leaving four of five parameters undocumented across both sources.

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 (write) and resource (log entry on the opencode server), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not need heavy sibling differentiation since no other sibling deals with log writing, but it also makes no attempt to distinguish itself from related diagnostic tools like opencode_health or opencode_check.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of when logging is appropriate or inappropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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