delegate_to_opencode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add useful behavior: the prompt is 'forwarded unchanged to OpenCode executing in the target workspace,' revealing a passthrough to an external CLI. However, it does not disclose side effects such as workspace file modifications, prerequisites like OpenCode CLI installation/authentication, or failure modes, which is significant for a delegation 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one opening purpose sentence, one role-context sentence, one passthrough sentence, and a short Args list. Every sentenceearns its place without filler or redundancy.

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 3-param tool with an output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, target, and parameters well. But it lacks operational completeness: no preconditions, side-effect warnings, or post-invocation behavior beyond the passthrough statement. An agent selecting among sibling delegation tools would benefit from explicit outcome and prerequisite context.

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 0%, but the Args block fully compensates by defining prompt as a dynamic real-time instruction, workspace_path as an absolute or relative path, and ide as an optional preference with specific allowed values: 'vs_code', 'antigravity', or 'cli_direct'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and default null.

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?

Description opens with 'Delegate a real-time software engineering instruction to OpenCode CLI,' a specific verb, resource, and target workspace. It also clarifies the role split between Claude Desktop and OpenCode CLI, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling delegate_to_antigravity and other OpenCode-related tools.

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 role framing ('Claude Desktop acts as the Planner and Architect. OpenCode CLI acts as the Coding Engineer') provides clear workflow context: use this when a coding instruction should be handed off to OpenCode rather than executed by Claude. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the intended usage is strongly implied.

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