Continuar sesión OpenCode

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the core action and the return payload (response, status, updated diff), but it does not explain execution semantics such as whether the call blocks until completion, whether it modifies project files, or how it relates to companion tools like opencode_wait.

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 sentence front-loads the verb and object, clearly stating the action, target, and return values with no filler. Every phrase contributes necessary information, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits operational details such as whether the call is synchronous, what 'estado' and 'diff actualizado' contain, and what optional parameters do. Given the large number of sibling session tools, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 only 20% — only 'directory' has a description. The description helps map 'instrucción' to prompt and 'sesión existente' to sessionId, but it gives no guidance on the optional 'agent' and 'model' parameters, leaving those underdocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 action ('Envía una nueva instrucción') and the resource ('una sesión existente'), matching the tool's purpose. It also specifies the return values (respuesta, estado, diff actualizado), which helps distinguish it from session-creation or execution tools like opencode_run.

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 phrase 'a una sesión existente' establishes a clear usage context: this tool is for continuing an already-open session rather than starting a new one. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it does not fully satisfy the 'when not to use' criterion.

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