opencode_provider_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well on side effects: it creates a temporary session, sends a prompt, and cleans up, so the agent knows this is not a passive read. It omits other important traits, notably that this makes a real model call (latency/cost implications), any auth prerequisites, and whether cleanup is guaranteed on failure.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The purpose leads and the implementation detail follows, so the agent gets the 'what' before the 'how'.

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 should say what a test result looks like (pass/fail, error surface) and clarify the undocumented parameters. The mechanism description is unusually helpful, but the return contract and most parameter meanings remain unspecified.

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 directory), and the description names no parameters at all. providerId is required but unexplained in both places, and format/modelID/variant are opaque; the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (test) and resource (provider) and immediately describes the mechanism: a temp session with a trivial prompt. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like opencode_provider_list, opencode_provider_models, and opencode_provider_auth_methods, which inspect configuration rather than exercising the provider.

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?

"Quick-test whether a provider is working" gives clear situational context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use provider_list to merely check configuration) or stating when not to use it, but the intended moment of use is unambiguous.

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