spss_graph_boxplot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable context: boxplots must use EXAMINE, not GRAPH, and categorical_variable=None yields a single-variable boxplot. However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or how invalid inputs are handled, so behavioral transparency is only partial.

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?

Two focused sentences convey purpose, syntax, version-specific behavior, and an edge case. The note about SPSS 27 is relevant and earned; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 that an output schema exists to document return structure, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. It explains the core command, the essential parameter behavior, and a significant platform quirk. Missing guidance about when to choose sibling graph tools is the main 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps variable and categorical_variable directly to the EXAMINE syntax (var BY catvar) and clarifies that None disables grouping. While file_path and title are not explicitly explained, they are conventional and the critical parameter behavior is well covered.

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 identifies the tool as producing a boxplot, optionally grouped by a categorical variable, and specifies the exact SPSS command (EXAMINE ... /PLOT BOXPLOT). It even distinguishes from the GRAPH command family by noting the missing /BOXPLOT subcommand, which separates it from sibling graph 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?

The description gives useful context about how boxplots are generated in SPSS 27 and explains the None case for categorical_variable. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives like spss_graph_histogram or spss_descriptives, leaving usage boundaries implied rather than stated.

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