Lanzar tarea OpenCode en segundo plano

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the asynchronous behavior and sessionId return, which are key traits, but it omits failure behavior, permission requirements, or how to follow up (e.g., with opencode_check/status). It does not contradict the schema.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose and return value (sessionId), but given no output schema and 6 parameters, it could mention how to use the sessionId with sibling tools or handle errors. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a background task tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it describes the tool's behavior rather than parameter details, and the schema already documents all 6 parameters adequately.

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 states a specific verb ('dispara') and resource (tarea/sesión), and clearly conveys the asynchronous fire-and-forget nature ('sin esperar'), which distinguishes it from siblings like opencode_run or opencode_wait. It also mentions the sessionId return value, reinforcing its unique scope.

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?

It explicitly says to use it for independent tasks ('Úsalo para tareas independientes'), providing clear context. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity vs. siblings like opencode_parallel or opencode_wait.

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