opencode_pty_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. 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether it is scoped to a server/session instance, or what happens when no ptys are open.

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 zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is efficient but almost too sparse to earn a top score.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what a listing returns (pty id, attached command, status), and it does not. For a low-complexity, single-optional-param tool this is acceptable but leaves a real gap around return shape and scope.

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 already documents its default behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g. why pty listing would differ per directory), 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 (open pseudo-terminals managed by opencode), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the session/message/file siblings. It stops just short of 5 because it never explains what a 'pseudo-terminal' means in this product or what a listed entry represents.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a session exist first?), and no mention of alternatives such as shell_execute or tui tools. The agent is left to infer everything about triggering conditions.

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