Spss Chart Km Curve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is a publication-ready file in PNG/TIFF, but says nothing about where the file is written, whether it overwrites, what permissions or data setup are required, or how failures surface. The bulk of behavioral context is missing.

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?

Two tight sentences with the artifact and the required inputs front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is reasonable, though given ten undocumented parameters the terseness edges toward under-specification.

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 described, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage on a 10-parameter file-producing tool, the description leaves too much unstated (data_file, resolution/size controls, event coding) for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only touches time, status, group, and the PNG/TIFF format. It leaves dpi, event (and its event-code value), title, width_px, height_px, and especially data_file entirely 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Export a publication-ready Kaplan-Meier survival curve') and names the underlying KM procedure, so the agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling spss_kaplan_meier analysis tool or the other spss_chart_* tools.

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?

'Provide time and status variables; group is optional' is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this tool over spss_kaplan_meier or another chart sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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