spss_rank

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying SPSS command, the dependency on IBM SPSS Statistics, and several transform options. However, it does not state side effects such as whether the input file is modified, whether output_path writes a new dataset, or how new rank variables are named.

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 one dense, efficiently structured statement that front-loads the core action ('Rank cases') and then packs the syntax and option meanings into compact parentheticals. Every element earns its place without redundancy.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main ranking options well but leaves gaps: parameter compatibility, exact output_path/file_path semantics, rank variable naming, and whether by_variables combines with other options. It is adequate for common ranking requests but not fully complete for edge cases.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for most parameters by embedding them in SPSS syntax: order is (A|D), rank_into is shown in '/RANK INTO var', and ntiles, percent, normal, fraction, and by_variables are all explained. file_path and output_path are not described, but their names and the surrounding context make their roles reasonably inferable.

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 opens with the specific operation 'Rank cases' and then gives the exact SPSS syntax 'RANK VARIABLES=vars (A|D) /RANK INTO var', making the tool's function unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from transformation siblings like spss_sort_cases, spss_recode, or spss_compute.

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?

Usage is implied through the syntax and option list: the tool is for creating rank variables from specified variables. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as sort, recode, or compute, nor does it mention any 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.