Esperar varias tareas OpenCode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it waits in parallel and returns results, which are important traits. However, it does not mention potential blocking behavior, timeouts, error handling, or what happens if some sessions fail, leaving notable gaps for a wait operation.

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 efficiently communicates the core functionality without any filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, despite other dimensions lacking detail.

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?

Given the complexity of a multi-session wait with configurable polling and timeouts, and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return value details, failure behavior, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to invoke and use the tool effectively.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameter structure. It mentions 'sesiones' but does not specify that the parameter is an array of objects with directory, sessionId, pollIntervalMs, and timeoutSeconds. The schema provides some help for 'directory', but other nested fields like 'sessionId' lack description, and the tool description adds no parameter-level 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 clearly states the tool's function: it waits in parallel for multiple previously dispatched sessions and returns each result. It includes a specific verb ('Espera') and resource ('varias sesiones previamente despachadas'), and the name 'wait_many' reinforces the multi-session scope, distinguishing it from the singular 'opencode_wait' sibling.

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: it is for sessions that have already been dispatched ('previamente despachadas') and handles multiple sessions in parallel. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent toward using this for multi-session waiting versus a singular wait tool.

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