agnt_watch

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It states the tool returns a command string and lists filters, implying it does not execute the command itself. However, the phrasing 'Build shell command streaming agnt daemon events' could be misinterpreted as actual streaming. The description would benefit from clarifying it only constructs and returns a 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 consists of two sentences with no extraneous words. However, the first sentence is slightly awkward ('Build shell command streaming agnt daemon events') and could be rephrased for clarity. Overall, it is concise and front-loads 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?

Given 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete but not fully. It explains the tool's purpose and lists filters, but does not specify the return type (string) or that the tool does not execute the command. Additional context on how to use the returned command with Claude Code Monitor 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 lists the filters (target, proxy_id, process_id, severity, format) but adds little beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., target values, process_id requirement). No new parameter semantics are introduced.

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 it builds a shell command for streaming agnt daemon events via `agnt monitor`, and returns a command for Claude Code Monitor or any shell runner. This clearly defines the verb ('build') and resource ('shell command'), and the mention of filters adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like execute_tool or run_slop.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond generating a monitor command. No comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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