Dispatch multiple development tasks to separate Claude CLI sub-agents, executing all in parallel asynchronously. Configure each task independently with prompts, models, and tools.
并行派发多个任务给不同的 Claude CLI 子代理。所有任务以 async 模式执行。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | 任务配置数组 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async execution mode, which is a key behavioral trait, but does not explain consequences like needing to poll for results or handling partial failures.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise but arguably too terse given the complexity of the tool; still, it earns a 4 for efficiency.
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 complexity of parallel dispatch and async execution, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., task IDs), how to retrieve results, or error handling behavior, and there is no output schema to fill the gap.
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?
The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. While the schema covers the top-level 'tasks' parameter, nested fields like max_turns, allowed_tools, system_prompt, and working_directory lack descriptions and the tool description does not compensate.
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 explicitly states the tool dispatches multiple tasks in parallel to different Claude CLI subagents, clearly distinguishing it from single-task siblings like dispatch_task. It is a specific verb+resource description.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_task. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.