agnt_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool constructs and returns a shell command string, but does not mention side effects (e.g., no network calls), auth requirements, or failure modes. Minimal but acceptable.

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?

Three short sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, output usage, and parameter list. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Covers the core purpose and output well for a simple tool. Could be enhanced by explicitly stating the command is not executed and must be run manually, but current content is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description lists filters with inline examples (e.g., 'target (errors/interactions/process/all)'), adding slight clarity over the schema's descriptions but not significantly more meaning.

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 clearly states the tool builds a shell command to stream events from the agnt daemon, with specific verb 'build' and resource 'shell command'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., auth_mcp, execute_tool).

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?

States the tool returns a command for the Claude Code Monitor tool or any shell runner, implying usage to obtain a monitoring command. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but context is clear enough.

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