spss_mediation

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the three-step process, the regression-based paths, and the Sobel test, and explicitly states a limitation (no PROCESS macro). This adds useful context beyond the name, though it does not mention assumptions (e.g., normality, variable types) or whether the tool modifies files.

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 purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase adds value, from the specific method to the output details and the PROCESS macro exclusion.

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 statistical complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers the main workflow, outputs, and a key limitation. The output schema presumably handles return-value documentation. It omits assumptions and data prerequisites, but the description is still reasonably complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and select it appropriately.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It maps x, mediator, y to the X, M, Y roles in the mediation model, which adds meaning. However, file_path is not explained, and there is no mention of variable types, ordering, or data preparation requirements. The param names are self-explanatory, but the description only partially bridges the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('Baron & Kenny three-step mediation analysis (X -> M -> Y)'). It lists exact outputs (paths a/b/c/c', indirect effect a*b, Sobel test) and distinguishes itself from PROCESS macro, differentiating it from sibling tools like spss_regression and spss_moderation.

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 this tool by specifying the mediation method and output. It also notes a key exclusion ('Does not bundle the PROCESS macro'), guiding users away from expecting that functionality. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of regression when examining mediation' or mention any alternative tool for other mediation approaches.

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