spss_chart_km_curve

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 discloses that the tool runs the KM procedure and exports specified image formats, but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites like an active dataset, or output behavior such as file paths or return values. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the essential inputs. There is no redundant or extraneous text, and the structure front-loads the primary action.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It covers only three parameters and does not address formatting dimensions, event coding semantics, or data_file defaults, even though the output schema exists.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains time, status, and group, leaving seven other parameters (dpi, event, title, width_px, data_file, height_px, image_format) without added meaning. This fails to provide sufficient guidance for an agent invoking the tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and clearly identifies the resource as a 'publication-ready Kaplan-Meier survival curve' with output formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF). This distinguishes it from sibling chart tools and from spss_kaplan_meier, which likely performs the analysis rather than the chart export.

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 description provides clear context that time and status variables are required and group is optional, giving preconditions for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as using spss_kaplan_meier for statistical results or other chart types for different visualizations.

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