Spss Kaplan Meier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully states a dependency ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed') and that survival curves are produced, but says nothing about permissions, computational cost, failure modes for invalid data, or how mutation-like behavior is handled.

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 action before the dependency note. No filler, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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. However, for a 7-parameter analytical tool with 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, the description is materially incomplete: an agent cannot tell what value status_event_value expects or what strata/percentiles do.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate yet it adds almost nothing. Only 'log-rank test' loosely maps to compare_method and 'compares groups' loosely maps to strata; the required time_variable, status_variable, and status_event_value, plus percentiles, are 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 Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test,' which is a distinct statistical method. It clearly distinguishes itself by naming the method, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby sibling spss_cox_regression or spss_chart_km_curve.

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 says it 'compares groups' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the SPSS install, and no comparison to comparable siblings like Cox regression or the KM chart tool. A user would have to infer that this performs the analysis whereas spss_chart_km_curve only plots.

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