oss_unit_next

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the whole burden; it does disclose two non-obvious traits — that the call is effectively idempotent per agent (returns the already-leased unit) and that distinct agents are required for parallel work. It omits important failure/behavior facts: what happens when no units remain, whether a lease expires or must be renewed, and that the call mutates server-side assignment state.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in two short sentences, followed by a compact Args block where each line adds real information. Nothing is padded, though the Args block format is slightly redundant with the schema's own parameter list.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description never says what a leased "unit" contains (id, path, scope?) or how the caller learns of exhaustion. For a stateful leasing tool in a parallel-agent protocol, that leaves the agent guessing about the return contract and the terminal condition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains `agent` ("분석하는 에이전트 id, 서브에이전트마다 다르게") and gives the concrete `kind` values (code / asset / test) that the schema does not enumerate. But the required `project_id` parameter is never mentioned, leaving the most mandated argument unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb+object: "다음 분석 단위를 임대한다" (lease the next analysis unit), which tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. It is clearly distinct from siblings like oss_unit_renew or oss_unit_complete in spirit, but it never names them, so differentiation comes only from the word "다음".

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?

"이미 임대한 단위가 있으면 그것을 돌려줌" and "병렬 분석 시 agent 를 서로 다르게" imply the leasing workflow and the parallelism protocol, which is genuinely useful context. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no statement of when to call oss_units_list or oss_unit_renew instead, so usage has to be inferred.

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