opencode_fire

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the call is asynchronous and returns immediately with job/session IDs rather than a result. It omits permissions, side effects, and whether the dispatched work is cancellable, leaving notable gaps for a mutation-style dispatch.

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 tight sentences; the core outcome (immediate job/session IDs) is front-loaded and the follow-up hint is second. Nothing is wasted.

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 async contract and the return identifiers are stated, which is the most important thing absent an output schema. But with 9 mostly undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves a substantial amount of operational context for the agent to guess.

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 only 11% (just the 'directory' param documented), yet the description explains none of the 9 parameters — not even the required 'prompt' or the relationships among agent/modelID/providerID/sessionId. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Dispatch a background task') plus the key outcome ('return its job/session IDs immediately'), which distinguishes it from synchronous siblings like opencode_message_send. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as opencode_message_send_async or opencode_run, so it stops short of a 5.

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 routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools by naming opencode_check and opencode_wait for observation, which is genuinely useful context. It does not, however, say when to choose this over the async/run siblings, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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