opencode_parallel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: results are appended to save_file with XML wrappers, tasks share workspace/permission/save_file, and there's a max of 100 tasks. It also explains the model array behavior. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance implications, or what happens when tasks fail beyond the parallel_fail_fast parameter.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each earn their place: first establishes the core functionality, second describes the output format and constraints, third explains the model parameter behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information about parallel execution.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering the parallel nature, shared resources, output format, and model behavior. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (only mentions output is written to save_file) or provide guidance on error scenarios, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining that 'All tasks share workspace/permission/save_file' and mentioning the model array behavior, but it doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's already thoroughly documented in the schema descriptions for all 13 parameters.

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 specific action ('Run multiple opencode tasks in parallel') and distinguishes it from its sibling 'opencode' by emphasizing parallel execution and shared workspace/permission/save_file. It also mentions the XML output format and max task limit, providing a comprehensive purpose statement.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for parallel execution of opencode tasks) and mentions the max 100 tasks limit. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like 'opencode' for single tasks or other *_parallel variants), which prevents a perfect score.

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