savedata_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses what is read, where the column layout comes from, what data types are present, and the optional CSV side effect. It does not describe exact return formatting or error cases, but covers the essential behavior well.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core behavior and data contents are front-loaded, and the optional CSV export is a clear, secondary clause.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the source, contents, layout origin, and optional destination. Minor edge cases such as behavior when the .out file lacks SAVEDATA information are not covered, but the essential invocation context is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents out_path, rows, and to_csv. The description adds a little context by mentioning CSV for R/Excel, but adds no parameter-level syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Read'), a precise resource ('the file a SAVEDATA command wrote'), and the meaningful content (factor scores, class probabilities, class membership). It also explains the key mechanism of using the column layout Mplus recorded in the .out file, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like output_summary or output_section.

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?

Gives clear context: this tool is for reading SAVEDATA output associated with an Mplus .out file, and optionally exporting it as CSV for R or Excel. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use case is unmistakable.

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