opencode_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only aggregate probe, but the description never confirms there are no side effects, what the aggregate actually returns, or whether it requires configuration/auth to succeed.

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 the scope statement front-loaded before the usage cue. No filler or redundancy, though it is minimal enough that it leaves gaps rather than being wasteful.

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 one-optional-param aggregate status tool with no output schema, the description names what is checked but omits what the returned status includes and how failures surface. Adequate to invoke, but an agent must infer the response shape and success conditions.

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?

There is a single optional 'directory' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its default behavior. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Check) and three concrete resources (OpenCode status, provider configuration, project), so an agent knows exactly what the tool surfaces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like opencode_check, opencode_status, opencode_config_providers, or opencode_project_current, leaving ambiguity about its uniqueness.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'as the first step when starting work,' which gives a clear triggering condition. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent facing overlapping status/config siblings gets no routing guidance.

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