Spss List Supported Methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read-only listing and discloses that returned methods come with schemas, templates, and coverage assertions, but it never states that it is non-mutating, costs nothing, or what the response shape contains—minor gaps for a discovery tool whose output schema covers the return format.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core purpose and the intended use front-loaded, and no filler. The undefined jargon 'cold methods' costs a little clarity but the structure is efficient.

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 no-argument listing tool with an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly signals the discovery role. The only residual gap is the unexplained 'cold methods' term and the absence of sibling routing, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter guidance is present.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List registry-backed SPSS methods') and hints at the differentiating scope ('available for structured execution'), which separates it from the analysis siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with the closest siblings spss_get_method_schema and spss_get_method_support, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 second sentence gives implied usage ('Use this to discover cold methods...'), which suggests a discovery step before execution. But it offers no explicit when-not guidance and never names alternatives like spss_get_method_schema, so routing between the three method-related tools is left to inference.

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