present

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the description must carry the side effects — and it does: it discloses that it replaces the view of every wtf window on the trace, and that with no windows open it instead writes `<trace>.agent.session.toml`. That is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it remains unclear whether the view replacement is reversible or how overwriting an existing session file is handled.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good. However, the parenthetical is overloaded with three cryptic asides (window replacement, `u` keystroke, file path), trading compactness for opacity rather than clarity.

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 tool with no output schema, the side-effect disclosure is the main thing needed and it is present. Gaps remain around what "workspace" contains in the rendered output and what the written `.toml` file signifies, leaving the agent unable to predict the user-visible result.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no words on parameter semantics.

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 verb+resource is present ("Show your workspace to the user as evidence"), so the core action is graspable. But the surrounding terms — "wtf window", "on this trace", "one `u` away" — are unexplained jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like `view`, `user_view`, `render`, or `workspace`, which plausibly overlap. An agent can guess the intent but not cleanly separate it from alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by "as evidence" and by the note that the user's own view is "one `u` away", which hints at the trade-off of overriding their view. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among the siblings, so the agent must infer the scenario.

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