All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅
_{Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.}

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

@codex review

Thanks for the review feedback! Here's my analysis:

Regarding view-image tool calls

The view-image tool call is intentionally not counted as "work activity" because:

1. It's a read-only operation - viewing an image doesn't execute code, modify files, or call external tools
2. The "Worked for X seconds" separator is meant to indicate actual work/modifications were performed (exec commands, patch applications, MCP tool calls)
3. Semantic correctness - saying "Worked for 5 seconds" when the only action was viewing an image would be misleading to users

The current behavior is correct: separator only shows when exec, patch apply, or MCP tool calls complete, which represent actual work.

Thanks for the review! Regarding the view-image concern:

I intentionally didn't count view_image as work activity because:

1. It's read-only - no code execution, no file modifications, no external API calls
2. Semantically misleading - showing "Worked for 2s" when only viewing an image doesn't match user expectations of "work"
3. Issue context - the original issue Sometimes see "Worked for" when job at planning stage #7919 is about "Worked for" appearing during planning phase when no actual work occurred

However, I'm happy to add it if you prefer consistency (any tool call = work).

Also, I'll rename had_work_activity → work_occurred as you suggested.

Please let me know which direction you'd prefer!