Spss Frequencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an environment prerequisite ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed') and the return shape, but says nothing about error behavior, whether file_path is read-only, or how optional statistics affects execution.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the return description and prerequisite. Nothing is redundant.

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 in depth, and the prerequisite is a useful addition. But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the missing explanation of file_path and the absence of any alternative-tool guidance leave notable gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 partially does: 'one or more variables' clarifies the variables param accepts multiple, and 'optional statistics' flags the third param as non-required. However, file_path is never explained, leaving the most important parameter undocumented.

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 SPSS FREQUENCIES on one or more variables') and describes the output ('frequency tables with counts, percentages, and optional statistics'). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like spss_descriptives or spss_crosstabs, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 implied use case is clear (getting frequency tables for one or more variables), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing toward the very similar spss_descriptives or spss_crosstabs siblings.

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