spss_regression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the SPSS installation requirement and summarizes the returned statistics, but it does not mention side effects, failure modes, data mutation risks, or the effect of the diagnostics flag.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Each sentence contributes useful information: the operation, the inputs, the outputs, and the environment requirement.

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 core operation and required inputs are covered, and the output schema presumably handles return details. However, with five parameters and zero schema coverage, the description omits meaningful semantics around method and include_diagnostics, leaving an agent to guess valid values and behavior.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions dependent and predictors, but leaves file_path, method (e.g., ENTER vs stepwise), and include_diagnostics unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a precise verb ('Run') with a specific resource ('SPSS linear regression') and the qualifier 'linear' clearly separates it from the many regression siblings like spss_logistic_regression or spss_ordinal_regression. It states exactly what the tool performs.

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 when to use it (when a linear regression is needed) and provides a key prerequisite (SPSS must be installed). However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool should be chosen instead, such as logistic regression for binary outcomes.

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