statistica_frequencies

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 doesn't state whether the tool modifies the spreadsheet, whether it requires an open workbook, whether results are written back or returned, or what happens to the 'attach' workflow. It only says the computation is done 'by the STATISTICA Basic Statistics module,' which adds little behavioral context.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it is arguably too sparse given the surrounding context.

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?

Four parameters with 25% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a crowded set of statistical siblings. The description is far too thin to let an agent invoke this correctly without opening the schema and guessing about the many near-neighbors.

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 only 25% (only 'attach' has a description), so the description should compensate for the undocumented path, sheet, and variables parameters. It doesn't mention any parameter at all — no hint that 'path' is required, that 'variables' selects which columns to tabulate, or that 'sheet' picks the worksheet. A significant gap.

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 resource (frequency tables and histograms) and attributes them to the STATISTICA Basic Statistics module, which distinguishes it from descriptives or statistica_descriptives. However, it doesn't clearly state the action verb (compute/generate) and gives no indication of what the output looks like or how it differs from statistica_descriptives or descriptives beyond the output type.

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?

No when-to-use guidance whatsoever. With nine sibling tools that are all statistical analyses (regression, t-test, anova, correlation matrix, etc.) and two near-neighbors named 'descriptives' and 'statistica_descriptives', the agent has no signal for choosing frequencies over those alternatives.

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