spss_filter

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the operation is temporary/reversible and explains the off-switch behavior, which mitigates the main destructive risk. It could go further by stating exactly what gets filtered or whether the file on disk is modified, but the reversibility note is strong.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The most important behavioral distinction, reversibility versus SELECT IF, is front-loaded, and the disabling behavior is stated immediately after.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior, the off switch, the environment requirement, and the sibling distinction. It leaves minor details implicit, such as what file_path must point to and the exact scope of the filter, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds real value by explaining that filter_variable is a 0/1 variable and that None turns filtering off. file_path is left to inference from its name, but in this SPSS tool family that is reasonably self-explanatory.

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 states a clear action ('filter cases'), the exact mechanism ('by a 0/1 variable'), and the temporal nature ('temporarily'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool spss_select_if by noting reversibility, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly frames this tool as the reversible, temporary alternative to SELECT IF, which gives clear when-to-use guidance relative to a relevant sibling. It also documents how to disable the filter with filter_variable=None, preventing misuse.

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