oss_unknown_record

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious trait: the same question+scope pair will not be duplicated. It omits what a duplicate hit actually returns (existing record vs. error), whether this is a write visible to other agents, and any permission or concurrency behavior.

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 behavioral guarantee is stated first, then a compact docstring block for the key params. No filler, though the Args-style listing is somewhat mechanical and drops the required fields an agent most needs.

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 9-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin: no return value, no dedup outcome, no interaction with oss_finding_record/oss_unknown_update, and 5 of 9 params undocumented. It is also Korean-only while all sibling tools are English-named, adding mild selection friction.

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. It does so usefully for domain (example values dataflow/dynamic-dispatch/etc.), severity (low–critical), required_level (L0–L3 meaning minimum evidence grade), and the recommended_probes object shape, but it never explains the two most important required params, question and project_id, nor agent, scope, or supporting_evidence_ids.

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 opening sentence names a concrete verb and resource: record things that could not be confirmed as 'unknowns'. That is a real action an agent can distinguish from listing (oss_unknowns_list) or updating (oss_unknown_update), although those siblings are never named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 condition for calling is implied by '확정하지 못한 것' (what could not be confirmed), which does give a usable trigger. However, nothing tells the agent when to prefer oss_finding_record, oss_unknown_update, or oss_unknowns_list, and no prerequisites (e.g. evidence required first) are given.

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