spss_export_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait: the batch engine lacks a GUI Viewer, so OMS is used instead of OUTPUT EXPORT, and this is 'verified live'. It also notes that the tool operates on procedures already run in the same job. It omits overwrite/append behavior, but the most important runtime constraints are exposed.

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 reasonably compact and front-loads the purpose and usage. However, the format list appears twice (the FORMAT= enumeration and the parenthetical mapping), which is redundant, and the 'verified live' aside could be considered extra. It reads well but is not maximally efficient.

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 tool has four parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, yet the description only explains export_format and the high-level ordering requirement. It fails to define file_path, output_path, or procedures_syntax, and does not describe what the returned output schema contains. An agent would struggle to construct a correct invocation without making unstated assumptions.

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?

Only export_format receives explicit semantics (DOC, XLS, HTML, SPV). The required parameters file_path, output_path, and procedures_syntax are left completely unexplained; the description does not clarify what each path refers to or what should be placed in procedures_syntax. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant 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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Export procedure output directly to a file') and explicitly names the SPSS command (OMS /DESTINATION FORMAT=...). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like spss_save_file (data export) and spss_run_syntax (generic execution).

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Runs inside the same job as the procedures' and gives ordering guidance ('call any analysis tools first, then this'). It also explains why the alternative OUTPUT EXPORT command is unsuitable in batch via the GUI Viewer note. It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, but the guidance is clear enough.

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