spss_read_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: 'Read' clearly indicates a non-mutating operation, 'Returns a detailed Markdown report' sets output expectations, and 'Does not require SPSS to be installed' adds an important environment requirement. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify the file', but the read verb makes that reasonably clear.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core operation and output format are front-loaded, and the environment requirement is a useful final note.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the input file type, the metadata returned, the output format, and the lack of SPSS dependency. The main missing piece is explicit routing among sibling metadata tools, but that is more of a usage-guideline gap than a contextual completeness gap.

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 provides zero description for the file_path parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds that the file is an SPSS .sav file, which gives the parameter semantic context, but it does not explicitly explain path requirements, accessibility, or expected format beyond that.

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?

States a specific action ('Read') with an unambiguous resource ('SPSS .sav file') and enumerates the metadata types returned. The description is clear and would distinguish it from spss_read_data, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling metadata tools like spss_list_variables or spss_value_labels.

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?

Intended use can be inferred from the description: call this when you need file structure metadata like variable names and value labels. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this over sibling tools such as spss_file_summary or spss_list_variables, and no exclusions or when-not-to-use cases.

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