Spss Anova

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a hard prerequisite ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed') and that post-hoc testing is conditional, but says nothing about error behavior, whether the dependent must be scale, or how the factor is treated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation leads and the prerequisite is placed last. Efficient, though it spends words on the optional feature while omitting required-parameter context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The prerequisite is covered, but for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage the definition leaves the required inputs and input-data expectations undocumented.

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% and the description explains only the post_hoc parameter by giving example values (TUKEY, BONFERRONI, LSD), which the schema lacks. The three required parameters (file_path, dependent, factor) receive no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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?

States a specific verb and statistical resource ('Run SPSS one-way ANOVA (ONEWAY)'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like spss_repeated_measures_anova, spss_manova, and spss_glm_univariate. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent's knowledge of the procedures.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to the many alternative ANOVA/GLM tools in the sibling list. It only notes that post-hoc tests are optional, which is a capability note rather than routing guidance.

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