spss_list_variables

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that SPSS is not required, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error handling or behavior for missing labels. The 'list' action implies read-only, but more explicit disclosure would strengthen this.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the main action, optional filter, and key technical note. No wasted words, and all information is relevant.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters and an existing output schema. The description covers the main purpose and optional filtering. It lacks some detail on search behavior and file path requirements, but given the simplicity and output schema, it is reasonably 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'search' parameter filters by a search term, but does not specify whether it searches variable names, labels, or both. The 'file_path' parameter is not explained beyond its name, though it is self-explanatory. Partial but not complete compensation.

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 lists variable names and their labels from an SPSS .sav file, using the specific verb 'List' and indicating the resource. It also mentions optional filtering, which distinguishes it from other SPSS sibling tools like spss_list_files or spss_read_data.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes that SPSS is not required, which is a technical detail rather than usage context. No alternative tools are mentioned, and no scenarios for use are described.

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