spss_anova

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions the installation prerequisite and optional post-hoc tests. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output to expect, or any side effects.

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 that front-load the core action and efficiently add the optional post-hoc detail and the SPSS installation requirement; no wasted words.

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 statistical analysis tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits data requirements (e.g., dependent must be continuous, factor categorical), supported post-hoc tests beyond examples, and any constraints, even though the output schema may cover results.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly covers dependent, factor, and post_hoc through ANOVA context, but fails to mention file_path at all, and provides no explicit parameter mapping.

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 clearly identifies the tool as running SPSS's ONEWAY procedure for one-way ANOVA, with optional post-hoc tests. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_glm_univariate and spss_repeated_measures_anova.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as spss_glm_univariate or spss_t_test. The description neither states conditions nor exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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