opencode_run

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors beyond the schema: the call is synchronous ('wait for its correlated response') and an observation timeout does not kill the remote session. However, it omits side effects/mutations, permission or auth requirements, and idempotency, which are significant for a task-execution tool.

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 tight sentences, action front-loaded ahead of the return/timeout caveat, with no filler. Appropriately sized for what it chooses to say, though minimal for a 10-parameter tool.

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 10-parameter execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It clarifies return shape (job snapshot) and timeout semantics but leaves the purpose of most parameters, execution side effects, and the relationship to sibling session/job tools undeclared.

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?

Ten parameters with only 10% schema description coverage (just 'directory'), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. It does not compensate for the large undocumented surface (agent, modelID, providerID, variant, sessionId, maxDurationSeconds).

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 concrete verb+behavior: send a task, wait for its correlated response, and return a job snapshot. This distinguishes it from async siblings implicitly, but the generic word 'task' and lack of any named alternative keep it from being fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus opencode_message_send, opencode_message_send_async, opencode_wait, or opencode_job_get. The description implies a synchronous execution path but never states the condition that selects it over the async alternatives.

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