spss_descriptives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the returned statistics (N, mean, std deviation, min, max) and the system requirement, which is useful. But it does not disclose whether the operation modifies files, how it handles invalid variables, or any error behavior, leaving gaps for a read-only-looking analysis command.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, then gives output and environment context. Every sentence 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?

The presence of an output schema helps explain return structure, and the description lists key statistics, but the bare input schema and lack of parameter guidance make the definition incomplete. Key details about file_path and statistics options are missing, and no differentiation from siblings is offered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by specifying that variables are numeric and that statistics are optional, but it does not explain file_path at all, nor does it provide any hint about what values the statistics parameter accepts. An agent would likely struggle to correctly construct the parameters.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Run SPSS DESCRIPTIVES for numeric variables' and lists the statistics produced. It is specific about the procedure and scope, but does not distinguish it from similar siblings like spss_frequencies or spss_crosstabs, so it loses a point.

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 a scope condition ('for numeric variables') and a prerequisite ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed'), which implies appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as spss_frequencies, nor does it state any exclusions.

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