Esperar tarea OpenCode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the blocking wait behavior, the timeout condition, and that evidence is returned. It omits details like polling mechanics or error handling for missing/invalid sessions, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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 wait tool with a fully described schema, the description covers the main purpose, timeout, and return value. However, without an output schema, 'evidencia' is vague, and the prerequisite of an existing session is only implied; the schema's sessionId description partially fills that 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only echoes the timeout concept and the notion of evidence.

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 ('Espera') and names the resource ('sesión asíncrona'), clarifying the blocking behavior until completion or timeout and the returned evidence. It differentiates from sibling tools like opencode_run/opencode_fire and the singular 'una sesión' distinguishes it from opencode_wait_many.

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 this tool is for waiting on an asynchronous session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as opencode_wait_many or opencode_status, nor does it mention that it should follow opencode_run or opencode_fire. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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