opencode_reference_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says it 'lists'. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires auth, paginates, or what the result contains. Minimal behavioral signal for a tool with 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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the ambiguity noted elsewhere rather than being maximally informative.

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 simple one-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It omits what 'reference files/resources' means and what gets returned, which an agent would need to invoke it with confidence.

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 'directory' parameter is fully documented there as optional and defaulting to the server default project. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 a distinct resource ('reference files/resources available to opencode'), which separates it from siblings like opencode_file_list and opencode_project_list. However, it doesn't clarify what 'reference files/resources' actually are, leaving some ambiguity about the intended content.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is used when it needs opencode's reference material rather than project files, which the text never states.

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