spss_file_summary

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

With no annotations to indicate side effects or safety, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that computation happens locally and does not require SPSS, which is meaningful behavior beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state that the file is read-only, but 'summary' plus local computation strongly implies no mutation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and output contents. It loses a point because 'Does not require SPSS to be installed' repeats the parenthetical 'no SPSS needed,' adding minor redundancy rather than new information.

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?

Given the output schema covers return structure, the description adequately covers the core purpose, input type, and the key behavioral differentiator (no SPSS required). It doesn't discuss file access requirements or edge cases, but for a summary tool with one parameter this is a workable completeness level.

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 for the bare string parameter. It adds meaning by indicating that file_path should reference an SPSS .sav file and that processing is local. It doesn't specify path formatting or file-size caveats, but for a single obvious parameter this is reasonably sufficient.

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 and resource ('Get a summary of an SPSS .sav file') and enumerates the exact contents: case count, variable count, variable list, and basic descriptive statistics. It distinguishes itself from SPSS-dependent siblings by emphasizing that the summary is computed locally without SPSS.

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 repeated 'no SPSS needed' note gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when a quick local summary is desired without requiring an SPSS installation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the local-computation framing provides usable selection guidance among the many SPSS tools.

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