spss_reliability_alpha

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the requirement of IBM SPSS Statistics and states it returns reliability statistics, but it does not disclose potential side effects, data prerequisites, or limitations. For an analysis tool, the absence of explicit side-effect information and error conditions is a notable gap.

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, consisting of two sentence fragments that are front-loaded with purpose and key return information. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary content.

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 (4 parameters, many similar sibling tools) and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage guidelines, and sufficient behavioral context. While an output schema exists, the description does not leverage it to compensate for missing details, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool confidently for nuanced cases.

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. It does not explain any of the four parameters (file_path, variables, model, scale_name). The mention of Cronbach's alpha hints at the model parameter but does not clarify the ALPHA/OMEGA choice or any other 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 'Run SPSS RELIABILITY analysis (Cronbach's alpha)', which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_factor or spss_correlations. Mentioning 'psychometric workflows' further clarifies its intended use.

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 phrase 'for psychometric workflows' provides some context for when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like spss_factor or spss_compute_scale_score. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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