Spss Ordinal Regression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully adds the environmental prerequisite ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed') and names supported features (multiple link functions, parallel lines test), but it omits key behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies data, whether it saves predicted values when save_predicted=true, and how results are produced.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by capability and prerequisite details in a logical order.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, so the description must do more. It covers purpose and the SPSS installation requirement, and an output schema exists to explain return values, but it leaves parameter semantics, usage conditions, and side effects largely undocumented.

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 the description does not compensate. It mentions 'multiple link functions' and 'parallel lines test' generically, but this adds no meaning beyond the enum and boolean already present in the schema. Required parameters (file_path, dependent, predictors) and optional parameters (categorical, save_predicted) receive no semantic explanation.

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 ('Run') and resource ('ordinal regression (PLUM)') and scopes it to 'ordered categorical outcomes,' which distinguishes it from linear regression. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like spss_logistic_regression or spss_regression, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for ordered categorical outcomes' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use exclusions, and no named alternatives such as spss_logistic_regression. Usage is left to inference.

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