opencode_delegate

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

Annotations already indicate mutating, destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's added behavioral insight is limited to the mode auto choosing between run and session and never selecting Claude. That is useful but minimal. The description does not mention other behavioral aspects like potential dependency installation or config changes, even though parameters exist for those.

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 sentence with no waste, covering the main purpose and a key behavioral detail. The phrasing 'only after Claude has chosen the OpenCode path' is slightly convoluted, but overall it is concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

This is a 14-parameter tool with no output schema, yet the description covers only mode selection and a usage precondition. It lacks any information about return values, parameter meanings, or example usage. The annotations help with safety expectations but not with how to properly delegate tasks, making the description inadequate for its complexity.

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 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden but only explains the 'mode' parameter partially (auto chooses run/session). It provides no guidance on critical parameters like task, tests, maxTier, or allowedFiles, leaving the agent unable to correctly construct a call without external knowledge.

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 states the tool executes a task ('Execute a task') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling OpenCode tools by being the delegation/execution tool, not a status or review tool. The mode auto behavior further clarifies its role. However, the phrase 'only after Claude has chosen the OpenCode path' is a usage condition rather than a core function statement, making the purpose slightly less crisp.

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 explicitly says to use it 'only after Claude has chosen the OpenCode path,' providing a clear when-to-use condition. It also excludes alternatives by stating mode 'never chooses Claude or a Claude subagent,' indicating this tool is for OpenCode delegation, not Claude. It doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the exclusion is clear.

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