spss_check_status

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 transparently conveys a read-only introspection behavior by stating it checks status and reports capabilities, path, versions, and configuration. It does not detail error behavior or connection prerequisites, but the non-mutating nature and informational return are clear.

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 with no filler: the first states what is checked and what is reported, the second gives the recommended invocation timing. It is front-loaded with the primary action and all details are relevant.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it names the exact information returned and when to call it. Return-value details are already covered by the output schema, so no additional explanation is needed.

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, so per the baseline rule this scores 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there is nothing to configure, and the input schema is vacuously fully covered.

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 and resource: 'Check the SPSS MCP server status' and enumerates exactly what is reported (capabilities, SPSS vs file-only mode, SPSS path, library versions, configuration). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_list_supported_methods or spss_get_method_support, which inspect methods rather than overall server status.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first to understand what tools are available.' It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but for a status-check tool the sequencing guidance is clear and sufficient context.

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