Ejecutar tarea 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 that a session is created, the tool waits for the agent's response, and evidence includes a diff. However, it does not mention potential file modifications (despite writeIntent), blocking duration, error handling, or side effects beyond session creation, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's workflow and output without redundancy. Every clause contributes value, and the most important aspects (session creation, delegation, waiting, evidence with diff) are front-loaded and clear.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and 25 siblings, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the high-level workflow but omits return format details (beyond 'diff'), error behavior, blocking semantics, and explicit differentiation from other run-family tools. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal context beyond the schema, such as the idea of delegating to a chosen agent and the evidence including a diff. It does not explain parameter nuances like the interaction between writeIntent and parallel execution, which the schema already covers.

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's function: it creates a session, delegates a task to a chosen agent, waits for the response, and returns evidence including a diff. The verb 'ejecutar' is implicit in the workflow sequence, and the mention of creating a session and managing delegation distinguishes it from sibling tools like opencode_reply or opencode_wait.

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 implies usage context through the workflow (delegating tasks to an agent and getting a diff), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like opencode_fire, opencode_parallel, or opencode_review. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, which is notable given the large sibling set.

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