Spss Read Metadata

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 that it is a read operation and that SPSS does not need to be installed, which is real behavioral context, but it omits failure modes (e.g., missing/invalid .sav file) and any permission or size considerations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of redundancy. Each sentence contributes (what it reads, what it returns, and the environment requirement).

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema that documents return values, the description covers the essentials: what is extracted and the no-SPSS-install requirement. Only the lack of sibling disambiguation keeps it from being fully complete.

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% and the description adds no meaning to file_path beyond its obvious role as the path to the .sav file. With a single self-evident required parameter, the gap is minor, so this lands at mid-range rather than low.

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 (read) and resource (variable names, types, labels, value labels from an SPSS .sav file) and specifies the return format (Markdown report of file structure). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like spss_list_variables or spss_file_summary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to neighboring tools such as spss_list_variables or spss_file_summary that could be confused with inspecting a file's structure. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose.

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