spss_crosstabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the operation, optional statistics, and the software installation requirement. It does not state whether the command modifies the data file, writes any files, or requires a running SPSS instance, so some side-effect/execution behavior remains 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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then list optional features and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description is sufficient for selecting the tool, and the presence of an output schema means return values do not need detailing. However, for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, important execution details are missing (expected file format, defaults, whether data is modified). It is minimally adequate but not 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that row_variable and column_variable are categorical and that the boolean flags correspond to chi-square and row/column percentages. It does not explain file_path (e.g., expected .sav format) or confirm the default-true behavior, leaving only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clear action ('Run SPSS CROSSTABS') and object ('contingency table between two categorical variables'), which separates it from univariate procedures like spss_frequencies. It also mentions optional chi-square and percentages, making the tool's scope easy to grasp. However, it never references a sibling tool by name, so differentiation relies on inference rather than explicit routing.

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 provides a clear condition for use—when a contingency table between two categorical variables is needed—and adds a prerequisite (IBM SPSS Statistics installed). It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool such as spss_frequencies or spss_custom_tables, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance. This is enough for common cases but leaves the 'vs alternatives' question unanswered.

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