agnt_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds a command rather than executing it, and that it returns a command string. However, it omits important behavioral details: whether it requires the agnt daemon to be running, whether the command blocks or streams indefinitely, potential side effects, and error conditions. The description does not contradict any annotations (there are none), but it is insufficient for a tool that constructs a potentially long-running streaming command.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then listing filters. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 optional parameters, the description should provide a complete mental model. It explains the purpose, return value (a command), and filters. However, it lacks details about how the command is to be used (e.g., whether it must be executed immediately), any prerequisites like daemon availability, and the format of the returned command. This leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with each parameter already described (format, target, proxy_id, severity, process_id). The description simply lists these filters without adding new meaning beyond the schema. It does summarize the filter list, but the schema already provides equivalent information, so this is baseline level for full 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?

The description clearly states the tool builds a shell command that streams events from the agnt daemon, specifying the verb 'Build' and the resource (shell command). It lists all filter parameters and distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_tool by noting it returns a command rather than executing it. This makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives context (used for streaming agnt daemon events via `agnt monitor`) and mentions it returns a command for the Claude Code Monitor tool or any shell runner, implying when it might be used. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, such as if a user wants direct execution or to interact with a different daemon. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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