Spss Mediation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analytical method and its components (regression, indirect effect, Sobel test) and a scope limitation (no PROCESS macro), which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits preconditions such as variable type requirements, how missing data is handled, and whether the file must already be loaded, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but assumption-heavy analysis tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core method and outputs, followed by the scope caveat. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should do more to cover invocation preconditions (data loading state, variable measurement level, assumption checks). It is adequate for identifying the method but thin on operational prerequisites.

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% for all four required parameters, so the description must compensate. The 'X -> M -> Y' notation usefully maps x=independent, mediator=mediator, y=outcome, covering three of four params. file_path is left unexplained, though its intent is inferable from the spss_* family, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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?

Names a specific statistical procedure (Baron & Kenny three-step mediation, X -> M -> Y), enumerates the exact output paths (a/b/c/c', indirect effect a*b, Sobel test), and implicitly delineates itself from the sibling spss_moderation by virtue of being mediation rather than moderation. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 scope exclusion 'Does not bundle the PROCESS macro' is a useful boundary note, effectively routing users who want PROCESS bootstrapping elsewhere. However, it gives no positive when-to-use guidance relative to spss_regression or spss_moderation, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied through the tool name and method labels.

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