swot_analysis

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait the schema cannot — that output includes 3-5 offensive and defensive strategic actions — but it never says whether the four category arrays are inputs the caller must supply or dimensions the tool infers, nor whether they are optional. That ambiguity is material for a 5-param 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the framework named first and the value-add outcome second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage across 5 parameters, the description should explain return shape and the input semantics of the four arrays. It gives partial credit by promising derived strategic actions but leaves the input contract and output format substantially under-specified.

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 only 20% — only 'subject' is documented, and the description adds nothing about it. The four arrays (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) are named as analysis dimensions but the description never clarifies whether to populate them or omit them, which is the central parameter decision for this tool.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource ('Run a SWOT analysis: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats') and adds the differentiating outcome ('derive 3-5 offensive and defensive strategic actions'). It does not name the sibling frameworks (marketing_mix, lean_canvas, decision_matrix), so the agent must already know the SWOT concept to distinguish it, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus marketing_mix, lean_canvas, or decision_matrix, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the framework name, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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