opencode_project_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a read tool. It does not state that this is a side-effect-free read, what happens when no project is active, or how the optional directory argument changes the result.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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 and no annotations, so the description could reasonably explain the return shape or what 'active project' means, but it does not. For a zero-required-parameter getter it is minimally adequate 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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'directory' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 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 ('Get') and resource ('current active project'), so an agent understands this is a read of the active project state. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like opencode_project_list, opencode_project_init, or opencode_path_get, which are plausible alternatives for project-related reads.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would call this instead of opencode_project_list or opencode_path_get.

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