spss_structured_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the output structure, files, warnings, and summary extraction, which is useful. However, it fails to disclose important execution side effects (e.g., arbitrary SPSS syntax may modify data or run long), and it does not explain how the save_* flags affect behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes arbitrary code.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and output shape. Every phrase earns its place—it specifies the JSON fields and the types of statistics extracted—without unnecessary verbosity 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?

This is a complex execution tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, so the description needs to cover more than the return value. It does not explain the optional parameters, execution constraints, or how it relates to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the missing parameter and execution context makes the overall package 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter semantics. It only names 'syntax' implicitly, but does not explain data_file, select_if, filter_variable, or save_* flags. Since the schema offers no descriptions, the tool description needed to compensate, and it completely fails to do so.

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 identifies the action ('Run SPSS syntax') and the output ('unified structured result as JSON'), which distinguishes it from siblings like spss_run_syntax by emphasizing the structured JSON summary. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar spss_run_syntax tool, so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation needed for a 5.

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 the tool is for obtaining structured results and summary statistics, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus other SPSS methods, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. There is no direct comparison to spss_run_syntax or guidance on choosing between them, so usage context is only implied.

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