opencode_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the response payload (the four metric categories), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only/safety semantics, permissions, or whether any of these checks can fail or be slow.

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 enumerated contents earn their place and immediately tell the agent what to expect.

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 and no annotations, the description reasonably compensates by listing what the dashboard reports. What it lacks is disambiguation against the overlapping health/vcs_info tools, which for a definition in this dense sibling set is a meaningful omission.

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 ('defaults to the server default project'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about scoping or how the target project affects the dashboard, so 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 ('Get') and resource ('status dashboard') and enumerates the aggregated contents (server health, provider count, session count, VCS info), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like opencode_health or opencode_vcs_info, which are subsets of this aggregation.

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 word 'quick' hints at an overview use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives. Given that opencode_health and opencode_vcs_info return a subset of the same data, the description should have said when to prefer this aggregate over those narrower tools.

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