workspace_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers the non-obvious parts: 'Inferred writers are guesses from announced areas, never facts,' plus the rule that long-idle peers appear under `idle_sessions` rather than `sessions` and are excluded from `overlaps`. Those caveats materially change how an agent should trust the output. It does not state that the call is read-only or comment on cost/latency, though 'status/overview' makes the non-mutating nature fairly evident.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage trigger, then the reliability caveat. Every sentence adds information. The mid-sentence line break inside the second sentence is cosmetic noise rather than wasted content.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description supplies exactly what the schema cannot: when to call it, that inferred writers are heuristic, and how idle sessions are bucketed out of `sessions` and `overlaps`. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description instead spends its words on output semantics (`sessions`, `idle_sessions`, `overlaps`), which is the right allocation.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and its scope: 'Overview of the sessions sharing this working tree: peers, overlaps and recent file changes.' That is far more than a restatement of the name and lets an agent distinguish it from file_history or recent_context. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it replaces or complements, so it is clear but not maximally 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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it at session start.' That is a real when-to-use instruction rather than an implied one. It offers no when-not condition and no named alternative for mid-session checks, which keeps it below a 5.

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