spss_list_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-oriented listing operation, describes the file source, the optional search filter, and the no-SPSS-installation requirement. It does not explicitly state that the file is never modified, but 'List' strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the optional search behavior and the environment note. 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: the file source, optional filter, and runtime dependency. It could be slightly more complete if it explicitly stated that the operation is read-only and clarified the search scope, but overall it is largely sufficient.

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 0% property-description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for file_path as an SPSS .sav file and for search as an optional filter term. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether search matches variable names, labels, or both, and does not elaborate on the required file_path beyond the schema structure.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', names the exact resource ('variable names and their labels'), and explicitly mentions the source as an SPSS .sav file. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying it lists variables, not files or 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 implies when to use it—when you need variable names/labels with optional search filtering—and adds a useful runtime note that SPSS need not be installed. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like spss_read_metadata or spss_file_summary, nor does it state exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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