spss_correlations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reports that SPSS must be installed. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it writes outputs or modifies the dataset, or what conditions cause it to fail. 'Compute' weakly implies analysis, but side effects and limitations are left unspecified.

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 short sentences pack the core purpose and a key prerequisite. The key action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the tool still lacks usage context and parameter semantics. For a statistical analysis tool with many siblings and four parameters, this sparse description does not give the agent enough to invoke it correctly without additional probing.

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 only adds meaning to the method parameter by naming Pearson and Spearman. The required file_path and variables, plus two_tailed, are not explained; the agent must infer their semantics from parameter names alone. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific command ('Run SPSS CORRELATIONS') and a concrete outcome ('compute Pearson or Spearman correlation matrix'), which precisely identifies the tool's role among the many SPSS siblings. The method choices reinforce the scope without ambiguity.

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?

No when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given. The only contextual note is the installation prerequisite, which is an environment constraint rather than guidance for choosing this over, say, spss_regression or spss_crosstabs. The intended use must be inferred from the tool's name and purpose.

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