spss_read_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output format (Markdown table), the optional filters, and the notable operational fact that SPSS is not required. It does not mention behavior around value labels or error handling, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Read rows.' Overall, it provides more context than many tools.

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 and every phrase earns its place. It leads with the core action and result, then adds optional capabilities and a key operational condition. There is no filler or repetition.

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 relatively simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers the primary input (file path), optional filters, row limit, and output format. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the 'apply_value_labels' parameter, which could significantly affect the output. Given the overall simplicity and existing schema, the description is sufficiently complete, but not exhaustive.

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 offers no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of two parameters: 'filter to specific variables' for the 'variables' parameter, and 'limit row count' for 'max_rows'. However, it completely omits 'apply_value_labels' and offers nothing beyond the name for 'file_path'. Thus, it adds partial value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 phrase 'Read rows of data' and clearly identifies the resource (an SPSS .sav file) and the output format (Markdown table). It also mentions optional variable filtering and row limiting, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_read_metadata or spss_list_variables that focus on metadata rather than data rows.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when you need actual data values from a .sav file in a readable table format, and not just metadata. It also provides a practical condition: 'Does not require SPSS to be installed.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops 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.