statistica_descriptives

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 notes the computation happens in the STATISTICA engine (Basic Statistics module), hinting at a heavier operation, but says nothing about whether the app is opened, permissions, performance, or what the operation affects. The related 'attach' parameter behavior is left undocumented in the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the distinguishing trait without waste. Efficient and readable.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about the operation's behavior and output, but it only covers what the tool computes. The core purpose is conveyed adequately, leaving moderate gaps around behavior and return content.

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 75%, with 'path', 'attach', and 'variables' documented in the schema, while 'sheet' has no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is an acceptable baseline given the reasonably high coverage.

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+resource (descriptive statistics computed by the STATISTICA engine) and adds a distinguishing qualifier that it provides statistics the JS shortcut does not. It does not name the 'descriptives' sibling explicitly, referring to it only as 'the JS shortcut', so the differentiation is slightly oblique but present.

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 'including ones the JS shortcut does not provide' implies this tool should be chosen over the lightweight 'descriptives' when fuller engine output is needed, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated. Usage must be inferred.

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