spss_factor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the analysis is run and what output it includes, and that SPSS must be installed. However, it does not mention side effects, failure behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, though for an analysis tool the disclosed information is reasonably informative.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by output highlights and a necessary dependency statement.

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 gives the core purpose and an external prerequisite, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, with five parameters and no schema-level descriptions, it lacks enough context about how to configure the analysis, especially method, rotation, and factor count.

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 should compensate. It only alludes to method choices ('principal components or principal axis factoring') and rotation indirectly via 'rotated factor matrix', but it never explains file_path, variables, or n_factors.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Run SPSS FACTOR analysis'. It also lists key outputs like eigenvalues, variance explained, and rotated factor matrix, and the tool name plus sibling list make it distinct from other SPSS analysis tools.

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 guidance is given on when to choose factor analysis over alternative procedures, nor does it mention any exclusions or sibling tools. The only contextual hint is the prerequisite that IBM SPSS Statistics must be installed, which is environmental rather than a usage criterion.

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