dispatch

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

With zero annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions that it returns {job_id}. It does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and result. It avoids fluff, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness. Overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, including a timeout and context files), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how timeout or context_files affect behavior, or what happens on failure. The presence of poll/wait siblings implies async, but this is not stated. More detail is needed for effective use.

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%, so the description must explain meaning. It only clarifies that 'agent' is one of three worker types. The other parameters (cwd, prompt, timeout_ms, context_files) remain unexplained, providing little value beyond the schema structure.

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 clearly states the action (dispatch a subtask), the target (code agent worker with explicit options opencode, codex, claude), and the return value (job_id). It distinguishes well from siblings like poll, list_jobs, cancel, wait which are about monitoring or managing jobs.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use dispatch versus alternatives like when to combine with poll/wait, or prerequisites (e.g., agent availability). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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