spss_read_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool returns a Markdown report and does not require SPSS, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied by 'Read', but more explicit detail would improve transparency.

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-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds value, making it a model of concise 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only metadata tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, input file type, and output format. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 one parameter with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by stating the tool reads from an 'SPSS .sav file', clarifying that file_path refers to that file. However, it does not specify format or access constraints, so it is not a full 5.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('variable names, types, labels, and value labels from an SPSS .sav file'), and notes the output is a 'detailed Markdown report'. This distinguishes it from data-reading and file-summary sibling tools, making its purpose obvious.

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 (need metadata structure from .sav) and provides context like 'Does not require SPSS to be installed', but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. With many sibling metadata-related tools, this lack of explicit guidance leaves some ambiguity.

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