Dispatch opencode task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses key behavioral traits: directly-spawned child process, no tmux, no shared visibility into orchestration layer, and immediate return of task_id. This goes beyond a simple 'start task' statement.

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 with zero waste. First sentence covers purpose and key behavioral traits, second sentence tells the next steps. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately mentions returning a task_id. It covers parameter semantics well (5 params, 100% coverage) and the overall workflow is clear. Could add more about error conditions, but sufficient for correct agent 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% but description adds important context: default model value, condition that variant only applied when model is given, and that session_id resumes an existing session. This adds meaning beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 starts an 'opencode run' in the background and returns a task_id immediately. It uses a specific verb ('dispatch') and resource ('opencode task'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning subsequent polling with opencode_status and reading opencode_result.

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 explains when to use this tool (to start a background task) and what to do next (poll with opencode_status, read opencode_result). It implies the workflow but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like opencode_wait for synchronous execution.

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