spss_list_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation but doesn't disclose behaviors like error handling, sorting, or how paths are returned. For a simple list operation, basic transparency is met but with minimal depth.

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 core action, and includes a practical use case without unnecessary filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values are likely covered. The description gives sufficient context for a simple file-listing tool, but the lack of parameter guidance and behavioral details prevents a perfect score. Still, it is functionally complete for its simplicity.

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 only mentions 'directory' generically without explaining the 'recursive' parameter at all. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the boolean flag unexplained.

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 'List SPSS .sav files in a directory' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spss_list_variables or spss_read_metadata by focusing on file system discovery rather than data content.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Useful for discovering available datasets when the user hasn't specified a file path.' This implies when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention other tools. The context is specific enough for an agent to decide.

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