kitty_disable_ligatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only explains the strategy values but does not describe side effects, whether the change is immediate, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on invalid input. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose in the first sentence and the strategy details in the second. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information, leaving no wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, prerequisites, or the effect of the tool (e.g., immediate change?). While the parameter schemas are clear, more context on the tool's behavior would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by explaining the strategy enum values in more user-friendly terms, but does not add extra information for 'all', 'match', or 'match_tab' beyond the schema. It provides marginal added value.

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 tool controls ligature rendering for specific windows/tabs. It explains the three strategy values, making the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tool handles ligatures, so it is well-differentiated.

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 implies usage when controlling ligatures but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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