list_supported_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists tests with menu paths but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., whether the list is static or dynamic, or if there are rate limits). It is adequate for a simple read-only operation.

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?

A single sentence with no extraneous words, front-loaded with the key action ('list every test'). Every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention if the list is sorted or categorized, but for a simple enumeration tool, it suffices.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the output includes SPSS menu paths, which is beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every test this advisor knows') and includes additional detail ('with its SPSS menu path'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'recommend_test' or 'check_assumptions'.

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 usage when you need to see available tests, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or references to alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned in the description.

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