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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds useful context about what is shown and the conversation-scoping boundary, but says nothing about freshness, result size, or what happens for legacy unscoped sessions.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the scoping constraint and the ID requirement. Efficient, though the 'Requires workSessionId' clause is arguably incorrect rather than merely redundant.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (workspace, active tool calls, recent runs) and the conversation scoping. It falls short only on timing/freshness and on reconciling the required-vs-optional conflict for workSessionId.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's 'Requires workSessionId' adds little and is actually slightly at odds with the schema, where workSessionId is not required and may be omitted for legacy unscoped work.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and names the exact resource and contents: the selected conversation's workspace, active tool calls, and recent workflow runs. This differentiates it from create_work_session, list_work_sessions, and workflow_status, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 scope clause ('other conversations' activity is excluded') and the 'Requires workSessionId' note imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance (e.g. vs. list_work_sessions or workflow_status). Usage must be inferred.

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