Check opencode task status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the status is derived from the child process's real exit event, not log string-matching, indicating reliability. This adds value beyond a simple 'get status' definition.

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 two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return values and behavioral nuance. It does not address error handling for invalid task IDs, but this is acceptable for a status check tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics about the task_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Task id returned by opencode_dispatch').

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 returns a structured status for a dispatched task, enumerating possible values (running, done, crashed, cancelled, unknown) and additional fields (exit code, log path). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on status retrieval rather than dispatch, cancellation, listing, result extraction, or waiting.

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 after dispatching a task (backed by real exit event), but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance provided.

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