opencode_project_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies filesystem mutation on the host and session isolation, but does not state whether an existing directory is reused or overwritten, what permissions are required, whether parent directories are created, or what is returned. For a host-side mutation this is a significant 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the brevity contributes to the unresolved 'create or open' semantics rather than resolving them.

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?

Minimum viable: the sole parameter is documented and there is no output schema to explain. However, with no annotations and no return-value description, an agent lacks the mutation semantics (reuse vs. overwrite, error conditions, resulting project handle) needed to invoke this confidently.

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 parameter's description ('Absolute path to create/open') duplicates the schema text verbatim, so the description adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('Create or open') and resource ('a project directory on the MCP host') with the intended purpose (isolated OpenCode session). It is clearly distinguishable from opencode_project_list/current, but the 'create OR open' duality is left unresolved, so the agent cannot tell which behavior fires for a given path.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite siblings like opencode_session_init and opencode_project_list that a planner could confuse with this. The phrase 'for an isolated OpenCode session' only weakly implies the trigger condition.

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