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 discloses the scope (all categories and pages) but does not mention return format, whether the output is sorted, or any other behavioral traits. For a no-param browse tool this is sufficient but not rich.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by use-case guidance. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, scope, and usage. It lacks explicit return format details, but for a browsing tool the description is adequate and complete enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description need not explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies; the description adds no parameter details but none are needed.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a complete overview of the OpenCode documentation structure, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('documentation structure'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on browsing vs. searching or retrieving specific pages.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to understand available documentation or help users navigate to the right section. It implies alternatives (search/get page) but does not explicitly name them or state exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the operation is a retrieval and returns 'full content', which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, formatting, or any side effects; the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 sentences: first states the function, second gives usage guidance. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and parameter context, which is adequate for a simple 1-parameter retrieval tool. It lacks explicit return-type details, but 'full content' implies the expected output. The absence of an output schema raises the bar slightly, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema covers the single 'path' parameter with examples, and the description also provides examples ('/docs/mcp-servers/', '/docs/agents/'). The description adds minimal beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the requirement of a known path.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full content of a specific OpenCode documentation page by path. The verb 'retrieve' and resource ('OpenCode documentation page') are specific, and the examples distinguish this from searching or browsing.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use this when you need complete information from a known documentation page.' This implies alternatives (search/browse) for unknown pages, though it does not explicitly name them or state when not to use the tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search returns 'contextual content with titles and direct links to the documentation pages,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not describe potential limitations like rate limits or result count, but for a simple search tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is two well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Search across the OpenCode knowledge base'), followed by usage context and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. Given the low complexity, the absence of additional constraints or result details is not a gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, which already includes guidance to 'Be specific for better results.' The description adds context about searching across the knowledge base but provides no additional syntax or format details, so it does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states it is a search tool across the OpenCode knowledge base, listing specific content types (configuration examples, CLI commands, guides) and return behavior (titles and direct links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetOpenCodeDocPage or BrowseOpenCodeDocs.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to answer questions about OpenCode, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details.' This provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to sibling tools.

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