workspace_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it succeeds admirably. It explains complex behaviors in depth: the distinction between the caller's session and others, that only write operations appear while read-only git subcommands are excluded, that failed operations are kept but marked, and that git commits are attributed in full with SHA and repo. This far exceeds what structured data could convey.

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 well-structured and thorough, using clear markdown headers to organize information about the workspace boundary, the output fields, and usage guidance. The critical usage instruction is front-loaded before the parameter details, and while detailed, every sentence earns its place by explaining behavior that couldn't be inferred from the schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It fully explains the response structure, the semantics of the 'self' session versus peers, the scope of recent_writes, and even the edge case of failed operations. The agent has all the information needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its results, from concurrency semantics to what the boundary of 'workspace' means.

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 schema's recent_limit parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful piece of behavioral detail about the parameter — indicating it specifically limits 'recent-write entries' — which is a slight clarification, but doesn't add entirely new semantic information beyond the schema's well-documented parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('same-workspace session awareness'), and the key differentiators: who else is connected and what files they recently edited. It provides a clear, non-tautological definition that goes beyond the tool name and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_status or git.

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 provides explicit usage guidance, most notably: 'Use this before editing a file that another session may have recently modified: if it appears in recent_writes, re-read it first.' It also clearly explains the semantics of multiple active sessions versus a single self-session, effectively telling the agent when this tool is the right choice over alternatives for concurrency checks.

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