spss_validate_syntax

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool does not execute syntax, only checks for basic syntax errors, and requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed. It does not describe the shape of validation results, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 short sentences front-load the core behavior and the non-execution guarantee, then state the installation prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 one-parameter validation tool, the description covers safety (no execution), scope (basic syntax errors), and prerequisite (SPSS installed). With an output schema present, the lack of return-value detail is acceptable; only explicit guidance versus spss_run_syntax is missing, but that is already reflected in usage guidelines.

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 a single 'syntax' string property with no description, so the description must compensate. It does identify the parameter as SPSS syntax, which disambiguates the bare schema. But it provides no detail on expected formatting, length limits, or how invalid syntax is reported.

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 verb ('Validate'), a specific resource ('SPSS syntax'), and an explicit non-execution guarantee. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like spss_run_syntax. 'Checks for basic syntax errors' further defines the scope.

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 'without executing it' phrasing implies this tool should be used when a syntax check is wanted rather than execution, especially before spss_run_syntax. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, leaving the routing to inference.

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