spss_manova

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool tests multivariate effects, provides univariate follow-ups, and requires IBM SPSS Statistics. However, it does not state whether it modifies data, how missing values are handled, or other behavioral constraints beyond the prerequisite.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by output behavior and prerequisite. There is no fluff or redundancy; each sentence adds necessary context.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. While an output schema exists (covering return values), it omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and assumptions (e.g., data requirements, missing data handling), leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the role of dependents ('multiple dependent variables') and indirectly factors, but does not explain method, factor_ranges, covariates, print_multivariate, print_univariate, or other parameters. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 action ('Run') and the resource ('multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for multiple dependent variables'), which precisely identifies what the tool does. It also mentions univariate follow-ups, making it distinct from univariate ANOVA tools like spss_anova.

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 when to use the tool by specifying it is for 'multiple dependent variables', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions. It only notes a prerequisite (SPSS installed), which is useful but not full usage guidance.

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