spss_t_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the important external dependency that IBM SPSS Statistics must be installed, and it states the supported test modes. However, it does not mention side effects, output behavior, or data requirements, which is a notable gap for an execution 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?

Two tightly constructed sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the supported types follow, and the installation requirement is a necessary and distinct fact.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this definition is too sparse. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves critical parameter semantics and variant-specific requirements unexplained, making correct invocation uncertain.

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, but it only sheds light on test_type. It does not explain file_path, variables, test_value, or grouping_variable, nor the per-test-type parameter relationships such as test_value being relevant for one_sample and grouping_variable for independent t-tests.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Run SPSS t-test' — and enumerates the supported test types (one_sample, independent, paired), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with statistical siblings like spss_anova or spss_nonparametric_tests, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tool should be used when a t-test is needed and lists the supported variants, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. An agent must infer selection from the tool name and sibling names.

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