opencode_project_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether the server must be authenticated/running, or what the response contains; for a server-backed list call that is 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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the disclosure gaps elsewhere.

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 low-complexity list tool with a fully documented schema this is minimally viable, but with no output schema the description should indicate what a 'project' record looks like or what the response returns.

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?

The single optional parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about 'directory' and its claim of 'all projects' slightly undercuts the parameter's narrowing behavior, but the schema itself is self-sufficient.

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 (List) and resource (projects known to the opencode server), which is clear on its own. It does not distinguish itself from the project-related siblings (opencode_project_init, opencode_project_current), leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 rather than opencode_project_current or opencode_project_init. The phrase 'all projects' implies enumeration, but nothing states prerequisites, pagination, or the alternative for a single project.

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