spss_sort_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not reveal whether sorting modifies the input file in place, writes to output_path, or returns a sorted dataset. Side effects are completely unspecified, which is a critical gap for a transformation tool.

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 efficient sentence plus two clarifying fragments. Every word earns its place: the core action, the sort_keys format, and the SPSS prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description misses essential invocation details. It does not explain how file_path relates to the data being sorted, whether output_path defaults to overwriting the source, or what happens if output_path is null. For a data mutation tool with no annotations, these gaps make the definition incomplete.

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 description adds meaningful structure for sort_keys ('list of {'variable': name, 'order': 'A'|'D'} dicts'), which the schema leaves as generic objects. However, with 0% schema coverage, it fails to explain file_path or output_path, especially the critical default-null behavior of output_path. Partial compensation for the main parameter but not the full parameter set.

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 specific verb and resource ('Sort cases by one or more variables'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_rank or spss_flip. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous. A 4 is appropriate rather than 5 because no explicit differentiation from similar transformation tools is provided.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as spss_run_syntax or spss_aggregate. The only contextual note is 'Requires IBM SPSS Statistics,' which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. There are no mentions of preconditions, output_path behavior, or when sorting is appropriate.

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