spss_get_method_support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output contents (command family, support tier, coverage assertions, documentation tags), which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it errors for unsupported methods, or any other behavioral nuances. It's adequate but not rich.

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 front-loads the action ('Get support metadata') and lists the specific output categories without any fluff. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is clear.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), so return value details are handled by the schema. The description covers the key output categories and the tool's scope. It lacks a mention of failure cases or prerequisites (e.g., method must exist), but given the simplicity, it's largely complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only shows 'tool_name' as a string with no description. The description indirectly implies that tool_name refers to the registry-backed SPSS method name, but it doesn't explicitly state what values are valid or how to obtain them (e.g., via spss_list_supported_methods). The meaning is inferable but not fully clarified.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('support metadata for a registry-backed SPSS method'), further detailing the contents ('command family, support tier, coverage assertions, documentation tags'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_list_supported_methods (list) and spss_get_method_schema (schema).

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 purpose implies usage (look up support metadata for a method), but there is no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' guidance. It doesn't mention that spss_list_supported_methods provides the valid method names or that spss_get_method_schema handles schema queries, so the agent is left to infer context from the tool name and description.

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