opencode_provider_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses that results include a connection status field, but says nothing about read-only semantics, auth requirements, or ordering/pagination. Adequate for a low-risk list operation, but thin given zero annotation coverage.

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; the resource and the key return attribute are stated immediately.

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 no-argument-heavy read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient; it even hints at return content via 'connection status'. It lacks only disambiguation from sibling provider tools, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 'directory' parameter is already fully documented by the schema (optional, defaults to server default project). The description adds no extra semantics, 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 (List) and resource (configured providers) plus a scope qualifier (with connection status). Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling opencode_config_providers, which an agent could easily confuse for this.

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 when-to-use framing, no prerequisite notes, and no routing to alternatives such as opencode_config_providers or opencode_provider_models. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'List'.

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