spss_get_method_support

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It makes the read-only nature clear ('Get support metadata') and specifies what information is returned, so an agent can infer this is a non-mutating lookup. It does not cover error behavior or auth requirements, which is the only substantial gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place by specifying the target and the returned metadata categories.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the input's semantic domain and the shape of the returned metadata. It could be more explicit about how to discover supported method names and what happens for non-registry-backed methods, but neither is essential for basic invocation.

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 only parameter, tool_name, has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the meaning 'registry-backed SPSS method name,' which helps, but it does not tell the agent where to find valid values (e.g., from spss_list_supported_methods) or define the expected identifier format. It partially compensates for the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Get support metadata') on a specific resource ('a registry-backed SPSS method') and enumerates the payload categories (command family, support tier, coverage assertions, documentation tags). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like spss_get_method_schema or spss_list_supported_methods.

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 only defines what the tool does; it gives no conditions for when to prefer it over alternatives such as spss_get_method_schema or spss_list_supported_methods, and no prerequisites like the need to obtain a valid method name from the registry. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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