oss_units_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses very little: it does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention pagination or default page size (limit=50, offset=0 in schema), and does not say what happens when status is null. The status-value list is the sole behavioral detail.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and with the one useful detail (status values) in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 paginated list tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains neither pagination behavior, nor what a 'unit' is, nor what the returned entries look like. Only the status filter is addressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does add real value for one parameter by enumerating the valid status values (pending/in_progress/done), which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string. But limit, offset, and project_id get no explanation at all.

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?

Names the resource ('단위 목록') and implies a list operation, which does distinguish it from the sibling mutation tools (oss_unit_next, oss_unit_complete, oss_unit_renew). However, '단위' is undefined domain jargon and the verb is only implied, so an agent must infer that this is a read/list operation rather than one of the many other unit-related actions.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus oss_unit_next, oss_unit_context, or oss_unknowns_list. The only usage hint is the parenthetical status note, which describes a filter value rather than a selection condition.

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