spss_list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly says the tool lists .sav files in a directory and is for dataset discovery. However, it does not mention how the 'recursive' parameter affects behavior, what happens with invalid directories, or whether only .sav files are returned. Basic behavior is clear, but edge-case behavior is undeclared.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a practical usage note. No filler or redundant restatement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description. Still, the description omits any guidance on the recursive parameter and does not clarify whether the tool filters strictly to .sav files. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for nuanced calls.

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 must compensate. It implies the 'directory' parameter through 'in a directory,' but does not explain what values are valid or how the 'recursive' parameter changes results. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List SPSS .sav files in a directory.' The purpose is unambiguous, and the distinction from siblings like 'read_data' or 'file_summary' is reasonably clear because this tool is about discovering files, not reading or analyzing them.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Useful for discovering available datasets when the user hasn't specified a file path.' This tells an agent when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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