Spss Nonparametric Tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the installation requirement; it says nothing about whether the source file is modified, what happens on invalid variable/group combinations, or any execution constraints. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but mutation and side-effect behavior remain opaque.

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 no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the prerequisite. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is achieved partly by omitting information an agent needs.

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?

For a five-parameter statistical tool with no annotations, zero schema coverage, and test-specific parameter requirements, the description is too thin. The output schema excuses it from explaining results, but it should at minimum explain the file_path/variables/grouping requirements that differ across the three tests.

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% and none of the five parameters are explained in the description. It never clarifies that file_path is an .sav path, what 'variables' should contain, or that grouping_variable/group_values are required for Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis but not Wilcoxon. Only the test_type enum is reflected, indirectly, by the listed test names.

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 names a specific action ('run') and resource (nonparametric tests) and enumerates the three supported tests, matching the test_type enum. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like spss_t_test and spss_anova by labeling the family as nonparametric, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

It states the environment prerequisite (SPSS installed) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when a nonparametric test is preferable to the parametric siblings (spss_t_test, spss_anova), and no conditions for choosing among the three offered tests. An agent must infer all routing decisions.

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