spss_run_syntax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key side effect ('persists .spv and .sps files'), a prerequisite ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed'), and the data_file prepend behavior. It does not warn that arbitrary syntax can mutate data, but the word 'arbitrary' partially conveys that risk.

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 three concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. No filler or repetition; each sentence adds relevant information. Slightly more parameter-specific detail could be added, but the structure is clean and efficient.

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?

Despite an output schema, the tool accepts 6 parameters and none are documented in the schema. The description does not clarify select_if, filter_variable, or the saving flags, and does not provide routing guidance toward the many specialized siblings. An agent would likely need additional schema inspection or examples to use it fully.

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 only explains data_file; syntax, select_if, filter_variable, save_syntax_file, and save_viewer_output are left to be inferred from their names. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('arbitrary SPSS syntax commands'), plus the output format ('Markdown'). The word 'arbitrary' clearly distinguishes it from the many specialized SPSS sibling tools, and 'return the output as Markdown' clarifies what the agent gets back.

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 this is a generic fallback tool for arbitrary syntax, but it never explicitly says 'use this when no dedicated sibling tool fits' or names alternatives. The guidance is mostly implicit rather than prescriptive.

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