Spss Cox Regression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes the SPSS dependency and mentions feature support (time-dependent covariates, stratification, diagnostics), but says nothing about whether files are read or written, side effects of save_survival, or runtime/permission constraints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then capabilities, then the environment requirement. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the parameter surface.

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 for a 9-parameter statistical tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin on parameter meaning, prerequisites, and behavioral expectations.

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% with 9 parameters and none documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at strata ('stratification') and diagnostics, leaving file_path, time_variable, status_variable, status_event_value, predictors, method, categorical, and save_survival 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run Cox proportional hazards regression for survival analysis'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like spss_logistic_regression and spss_kaplan_meier. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the method name is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over spss_kaplan_meier (non-parametric survival) or spss_logistic_regression, nor any stated prerequisites beyond SPSS being installed. The agent must infer the use case from the method name alone.

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