spss_correlations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the installation requirement and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what output is returned, potential side effects, or handling of missing data. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's runtime behavior.

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 sentence that is direct and free of redundancy. It front-loads the key action and output, and the additional installation note is concise. No words are wasted.

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?

Given that the tool has four parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It lacks information about data assumptions, output structure (despite an output schema existing), or typical use cases beyond the bare statement of computing a correlation matrix. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'Pearson' and 'Spearman', which relates to the method parameter, but says nothing about file_path, variables, or two_tailed. The agent receives minimal guidance on how to set them correctly.

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 states the tool's function: 'Run SPSS CORRELATIONS to compute Pearson or Spearman correlation matrix.' It names the specific SPSS procedure, the verb 'compute', and the output type. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling statistical tools like spss_regression or spss_t_test.

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?

Usage context is implied: you would use this when you need a correlation matrix. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. The prerequisite 'Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed' provides some operational guidance but not comparative selection advice.

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