spss_kaplan_meier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the environmental requirement and high-level outputs, but does not mention side effects, permissions, speed, or whether it writes output files. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description alone offers limited behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by outputs and a necessary prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 is complex (7 parameters, statistical analysis) but the description omits parameter semantics and usage disambiguation from sibling survival/plot tools. Although an output schema exists, the missing guidance on when to use and how to configure parameters makes the description incomplete.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. While parameter names like 'time_variable' and 'status_variable' are suggestive, the description adds no meaning for fields such as 'status_event_value' or 'compare_method' enum values, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate the 7 parameters.

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 action ('Run Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test') and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_cox_regression and spss_chart_km_curve. It also mentions expected outputs ('survival curves' and 'compares groups'), fully conveying the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage for survival analysis comparing groups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as spss_cox_regression. It mentions a prerequisite (IBM SPSS Statistics installed) but lacks guidance on exclusions or alternative selection.

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