spss_manova

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the main behavior: running multivariate tests and providing univariate follow-ups. It also adds the environmental prerequisite that IBM SPSS Statistics must be installed. It does not, however, mention potential side effects, output behavior, or whether any data is modified.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes either the procedure's purpose or a necessary external requirement. There is no filler or repetition.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no per-parameter descriptions, this is too sparse. The output schema may cover return values, but the agent still lacks guidance on parameter semantics and on choosing MANOVA over the many related statistical siblings. A simple call could be constructed from defaults, but non-default configurations remain ambiguous.

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 undocumented parameters. It only loosely connects to dependents and factors, and it says nothing about file_path, covariates, factor_ranges, method (UNIQUE vs SEQUENTIAL), or the print flags. The parameter names and enum provide some structure, but the description adds almost no semantic detail.

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 verb ('Run'), a specific statistical procedure (MANOVA), and its defining condition ('multiple dependent variables'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like spss_anova by emphasizing multivariate analysis and univariate follow-ups.

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 a clear application context: MANOVA for multiple dependent variables with factors. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., spss_anova, spss_glm_univariate, spss_repeated_measures_anova) to prefer in other scenarios.

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