spss_match_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the IBM SPSS Statistics requirement, the minimum file count, and the sorting prerequisite, which are useful. But it does not describe matching behavior for unmatched cases, overwriting behavior, or consequences of incorrect input, leaving important behavioral details unspecified.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation ('Combine variables across files (join by key)'), followed by concise parameter guidance and a required-environment note. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 description covers the essential operation and key parameters, and an output schema exists. However, the undocumented keep/drop parameters, lack of distinction from spss_star_join, and absence of join-semantics details make it incomplete for an agent choosing and invoking this tool confidently in all reasonable scenarios.

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 explains file_paths, key_variables, and output_path reasonably well, but it completely omits the semantics of the 'keep' and 'drop' parameters, which are part of the schema and could materially affect the merge result.

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 operation and resource: 'Combine variables across files (join by key)' naming the SPSS MATCH FILES command. It is clear and unlikely to be confused with basic data-reading tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like spss_star_join or spss_add_files.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when combining variables across .sav files by key. It also gives prerequisites such as requiring at least two files, using BY variables, and that files must be sorted on those variables. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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