Bifurcar sesión OpenCode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (creates a child session, preserves original context) but does not address side effects, permissions, or what happens to the original session. The phrase 'sin perder el contexto original' is useful, but missing details like prerequisites or return value limit transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain return behavior or prerequisites. It explains the core purpose but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., new session ID) or any required preconditions beyond the schema fields. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (title lacks description). The schema already documents directory, sessionId, and messageId. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it neither compensates for the 25% gap nor significantly enriches semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Crea' = creates) and resource ('una sesión hija desde una sesión existente'), clearly defining the action. It also differentiates from sibling tools like opencode_run or opencode_children by emphasizing the child-session fork behavior and context preservation.

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: 'para explorar una alternativa sin perder el contexto original' (to explore an alternative without losing original context). It implies a use case but stops short of naming alternatives or providing explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use opencode_run instead).

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