spss_nonparametric_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite that SPSS must be installed, but does not disclose side effects, return behavior, data handling, or what happens if SPSS is missing. Other than the prerequisite, no behavioral traits are revealed.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences (21 words) and front-loading the core purpose. The prerequisite sentence is valuable and earns its place. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema. The description is too sparse for an agent to invoke correctly without additional information about parameter structure (e.g., how 'variables' relates to 'grouping_variable' or 'group_values'). It also lacks behavioral context and does not leverage the output schema to explain returned results.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It provides the enum values for test_type by naming the three tests, which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain file_path, variables, group_values, or grouping_variable, leaving significant ambiguity for a user preparing input.

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 verb 'Run', the resource 'common nonparametric tests in SPSS', and specifically lists the three test types (Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon signed-rank, Kruskal-Wallis). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like t_test, anova, and regression which are parametric.

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 usage for nonparametric testing through the term 'nonparametric', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or assumptions. The prerequisite 'Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed' is a useful context but does not guide tool selection.

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