spss_logistic_regression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that IBM SPSS Statistics must be installed, but it does not state whether the tool writes or modifies files, whether it has side effects, what happens when SPSS is unavailable, or what errors or outputs to expect. This is a significant gap for an execution tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose: what it does, what it supports, and what it requires. It could include more parameter guidance without becoming bloated, but as written it is tight and free of filler.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, the description leaves key usage details unexplained. While an output schema exists, the tool still lacks guidance on parameter semantics, side effects, and relationship to sibling regression tools, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 for parameter meaning. It hints at 'stepwise selection' and 'categorical predictors,' which map to method and categorical, but it provides no explanation of required params like file_path, dependent, and predictors, or optional params like contrast, print_options, and save_predicted. The compensation is insufficient.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('binary or multinomial logistic regression'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like spss_regression and spss_ordinal_regression by naming the exact model family and scope.

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 use for logistic regression tasks, which gives basic context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions where another regression tool would be more appropriate.

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