spss_cox_regression

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 a key prerequisite ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed') and lists supported features, but does not describe behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, long-running behavior, error modes, or side effects. The prerequisite and feature list add some context, but richer behavioral disclosure is absent.

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 three concise sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Run Cox proportional hazards regression'), followed by capabilities and a requirement. No wasted words; every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 complex 9-parameter statistical tool with no parameter descriptions, the description provides a high-level summary but lacks details needed for correct invocation. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but input semantics and usage context are still thin. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent.

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 for explaining the 9 parameters. It only indirectly hints at 'stratification' correlating with the strata parameter, but does not explain method, categorical, save_survival, status_event_value, or the relationship between predictors and time-dependent covariates. This is insufficient for correctly constructing a call.

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 action and resource: 'Run Cox proportional hazards regression for survival analysis.' It also lists specific capabilities (time-dependent covariates, stratification, model diagnostics) that distinguish it from sibling survival tools like spss_kaplan_meier. This is a specific and informative purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention competing analyses (e.g., Kaplan-Meier for survival curves, logistic regression for binary outcomes) or exclusion criteria. The only practical note is the SPSS installation requirement, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. This lacks the 'versus' context needed for tool selection.

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