spss_regression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite that IBM SPSS Statistics must be installed and notes the returned outputs, but does not disclose whether the tool modifies files, requires specific data formats, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant information, but the lack of structured detail on parameters and usage keeps it from being exceptional.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered. However, the description fails to provide usage guidelines, explain parameters like method and include_diagnostics, or mention when to use this tool compared to other regression tools. Given the tool's complexity and zero annotation support, the description is incomplete.

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 0% description coverage. The description explains 'dependent' and 'predictors' but leaves file_path, method, and include_diagnostics undocumented. This is a significant gap, especially since file_path is required and method affects the regression procedure.

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 states 'Run SPSS linear regression' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like logistic or ordinal regression. It also lists key outputs (coefficients, R-squared, ANOVA table, significance tests) that further clarify its function.

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 no guidance on when to use linear regression versus alternatives (e.g., logistic regression for binary outcomes). It implies usage by stating what it does, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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