spss_ordinal_regression

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions feature support (link functions, parallel lines) and the SPSS requirement. It does not explain side effects (e.g., save_predicted behavior), whether it modifies data, or what the output looks like. This is a significant transparency gap for a statistical procedure with multiple options.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key features, and prerequisite. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundancy, exhibiting strong front-loading and structure.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description is too brief to be fully contextual. It does not explain the workflow, result interpretation, or how parameters interact. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks necessary context for correct invocation, especially considering the absence of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 needs to compensate by explaining parameter meanings. However, it only references 'link functions' and 'parallel lines test' without detailing the parameters themselves (file_path, dependent, predictors, categorical, save_predicted). The description adds almost no value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter semantics.

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 runs ordinal regression (PLUM) for ordered categorical outcomes, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling regression tools by specifying the outcome type (ordered categorical), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by stating it is for ordered categorical outcomes, which tells when to use it. It also mentions the prerequisite that IBM SPSS Statistics must be installed, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or define exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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