opencode_message_send_async

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely valuable trait — that 2.0.30 falls back to a synchronous /prompt call that may block — but it omits auth requirements, error behavior, and return-format details beyond the messageId.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the important caveat. Minimal waste, though the NOTE reads slightly run-on.

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 8 parameters and 13% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only the async/fallback behavior. Most parameters and the practical invocation details remain undocumented anywhere.

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 only 13%: 8 parameters, with only 'directory' documented. The description adds no meaning for text, agent, format, modelID, variant, sessionId, or providerID, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a prompt asynchronously') and clarifies the return value ('return its messageId for opencode_wait'), which makes the async workflow legible. It does not explicitly name the sibling opencode_message_send as the synchronous alternative, so differentiation is only implied.

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 mention of returning a messageId 'for opencode_wait' implies the intended two-step workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs opencode_message_send guidance or when-not condition. Usage is left to inference.

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