spss_validate_syntax

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool does not execute syntax (safety behavior) and requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed (prerequisite). It also honestly limits itself to 'basic syntax errors.' It does not describe output behavior, but an output schema exists.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence contributes: what it does, what it doesn't do, and a prerequisite. There is no fluff.

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 simple validation tool with one string parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: non-execution, basic error checking, and dependency. Minor gap: the nature of the SPSS installation (local vs. remote) is ambiguous, but not critical.

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 one parameter 'syntax' with no description and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It indirectly indicates the parameter holds SPSS syntax via 'Validate SPSS syntax,' but does not add details on format, limits, or encoding. This is minimal added value over the parameter name.

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 validates SPSS syntax without executing it, using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from spss_run_syntax by explicitly noting 'without executing it' and scoping to 'basic syntax errors.'

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 clear context: use this tool when you want to validate syntax without executing it. The phrase 'without executing it' implies it is an alternative to execution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like spss_run_syntax or state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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