opencode_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at a polling mechanism ('observing /message + /active'), but does not say whether the call blocks, what happens on timeout, whether it returns when the turn errors/aborts, or how failures surface. For a long-running blocking operation this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally good. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it cannot score higher.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and five parameters with only 20% schema coverage, yet the description is one line. An agent lacks the timeout, polling, return-value, and failure semantics needed to call a blocking wait correctly. Inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 20% (only 'directory' is documented), so the description must compensate. It hints that messageId relates to the observed turn, but pollIntervalMs and timeoutSeconds are left unexplained in both schema and description, and required sessionId is not elaborated. The description does not fill 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 ('Wait') and resource ('a session turn'), plus the completion condition. The '/message + /active' clause is internal jargon that adds little for an agent, but the core action is clear enough. No sibling performs this exact blocking-wait role, so differentiation is implicitly adequate.

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 call this versus alternatives such as opencode_events_poll, opencode_status, or opencode_message_send_async. It does not state prerequisites, nor whether it is meant to follow a send. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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