Coordinar tareas OpenCode en paralelo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that concurrent writes are rejected by default, the max task count of 12, and how to permit shared directory writes. This is valuable behavioral context beyond input 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, and every phrase provides useful information: max tasks, independence, write-conflict behavior, and resolution options. No filler.

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 dispatch tool, the description covers the key operational constraint. It does not specify whether results require waiting/polling, but sibling tools like opencode_wait and opencode_status likely cover that. With no output schema, it could be more explicit, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the default write-conflict behavior, which clarifies why `allowSharedDirectory` exists and what 'independent tasks' implies for the `tasks` array.

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 tool dispatches up to 12 independent OpenCode tasks in parallel, with a specific verb and resource ('Despacha ... tareas independientes'). The behavior of rejecting concurrent writes further distinguishes it from sibling run/fire 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 description gives concrete usage guidance: tasks should be independent, and if they involve writes, use separate directories/worktrees or explicitly allow shared directory. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like serial execution, but the constraint is actionable.

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