spss_list_supported_methods

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 mentions 'registry-backed' and 'available for structured execution,' giving some context about data source and output nature. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or filtering criteria, leaving some gaps for a discovery tool.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action ('List registry-backed SPSS methods'), and every phrase adds value. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easily scannable.

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 (no params), an output schema is present, and the description covers the main behavioral context (registry-backed, structured execution, schemas/templates/coverage). It is sufficiently complete for a list/discovery tool, though it could mention whether the list is exhaustive or paginated.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per baseline rules, a 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information to add beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 function: 'List registry-backed SPSS methods available for structured execution.' It also specifies the purpose of discovering 'cold methods that have schemas, templates, and coverage assertions,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_get_method_schema and spss_get_method_support.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover cold methods...' This tells the agent when to call this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_method_schema for details) implies differentiation clearly enough.

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