ghostty_window

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

No annotations provided; description only states 'Manage...' without detailing behavioral traits like side effects, prerequisites, or limits. Fails to carry the burden for a tool with no extra metadata.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but slightly vague. No unnecessary content, though it could be more informative without losing brevity.

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 tool with 6 actions, a nested config object (open-ended), and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain scope, return values, or config usage, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (action and config) with baseline clarity. The description adds no extra meaning, such as allowed config keys or action specifics, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description 'Manage Ghostty windows and splits' clearly indicates the tool's domain but does not distinguish it from siblings like ghostty_list (which may also list windows) or ghostty_command. The schema's action enum adds specificity.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and schema actions (new, close, split, focus). No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, such as ghostty_command or ghostty_list.

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