spss_file_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating the computation is done locally and does not require SPSS, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects like file size limitations, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (though that is implied).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the key differentiator ('no SPSS needed') without any 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is fairly complete: it lists the exact contents of the summary and highlights the local computation aspect. It could mention potential failure modes or file requirements, but the output schema covers return values and the tool is straightforward.

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 one parameter (file_path) with zero description coverage. The description indirectly clarifies that the file_path should point to an SPSS .sav file, but does not explicitly document the parameter or provide additional syntax, format, or prerequisite details. It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get a summary of an SPSS .sav file' and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (case count, variable count, variable list, basic descriptive statistics). This distinguishes it from siblings like spss_read_metadata or spss_descriptives, which target more detailed or specific outputs.

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 phrase 'computed locally (no SPSS needed)' implies this tool is useful when SPSS is unavailable or for a quick overview, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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