spss_custom_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses several non-obvious operational traits: statistics can only be placed on row variables, MEAN on a categorical variable is rejected by SPSS, and the Custom Tables module must be installed. It does not describe side effects or output, but an output schema exists to cover the return shape.

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?

Four short, information-dense segments with no filler. The purpose and syntax are front-loaded, and each constraint earns its place.

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 complex SPSS syntax tool, the description covers the key syntax pattern, parameter roles, an important SPSS-specific rejection, and the module prerequisite. The output schema handles return values. The only notable gap is the lack of a full list of allowed statistics, softened by 'statistics: COUNT, MEAN, MEDIAN, etc.'

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 explains the role of rows and columns via CTABLES syntax, clarifies that the statistics parameter applies to row variables only, and gives example values (COUNT, MEAN, MEDIAN). It does not explain file_path or title, but those are self-explanatory from context.

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 opens with 'Custom pivot tables' and provides the CTABLES syntax, so an agent can tell this is for building custom pivot tables rather than standard crosstabs or frequencies. It lacks an explicit verb like 'creates', but the syntax and examples make the purpose unambiguous.

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 use for custom pivot tables and spells out key constraints (statistics attach to rows only; MEAN on a categorical is rejected) plus the Custom Tables module requirement. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over spss_crosstabs or spss_frequencies, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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