Wait for an opencode subagent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait — agent_ids survive an MCP server restart — but omits blocking/polling semantics, what happens when the agent never finishes or the id is invalid, and whether early timeout returns partial state.

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?

Two tightly-written sentences with zero padding; the core purpose is front-loaded and the restart caveat is a single qualifying clause rather than a paragraph. 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?

For a simple wait tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the definition covers the essential purpose and one non-obvious behavior. The remaining gap — error/failure and timeout-result semantics — is meaningful but small given the schema already explains early return.

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?

With two parameters and 50% schema coverage, timeout_seconds is already documented in the schema as an early-return mechanism. The description references agent_ids but adds no format, provenance, or semantics for agent_id beyond what the parameter name implies, so it neither compensates nor regresses.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Wait for a background opencode subagent and return its result'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like send_message, stop, list, and agent. The scope is unambiguous and the outcome (returns the result) is stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'background' subagent suggests it is used when polling an asynchronously-started agent, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., vs. list or agent) is named. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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