Spss Normality Outliers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an environmental prerequisite ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed') and that plots are optional, but it does not state whether the procedure mutates the file, what happens on missing values, or any performance or permissions characteristics.

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 action and target, with the prerequisite placed last. No wasted words, though it is slightly sparse given the tool's analytical complexity.

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 explained, and the description covers purpose, the plots option, and the environment requirement. It is nearly complete for an analysis tool, with the main gap being undocumented file_path semantics and no output-shape hint.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'numeric variables' maps to the variables array and 'optional diagnostic plots' maps to the plots flag (consistent with its default of true), but file_path is never mentioned and no format or element-type guidance is given for variables.

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 (Run), procedure (SPSS EXAMINE), and resource (normality and outliers for numeric variables), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like spss_descriptives or spss_chart_qqplot, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 by naming the analytical goal (checking normality and outliers) and noting diagnostic plots are optional, but it gives no explicit when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing it over spss_descriptives or the chart tools.

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