SWOTPal — SWOT Analysis

Tool Scores

• generate_swotB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 but fails to specify output format (structured vs text), persistence behavior, or side effects. The term 'Generate' implies creation but does not clarify whether the analysis is stored, returned transiently, or requires specific permissions.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action ('Generate') and immediately clarifies the scope, demonstrating excellent information density.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the input requirements. However, with no output schema provided, it fails to describe the return structure (e.g., four-quadrant format vs narrative), leaving a significant gap in the agent's ability to predict the tool's output.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the 'topic' parameter by listing examples (company, brand, product) in the main text, but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or guidance on parameter interplay that isn't already in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool generates a SWOT analysis and defines the acronym. It specifies applicable targets (company, brand, product, topic). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'generate_versus' or 'get_analysis', leaving potential ambiguity about which generation or analysis tool to select.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_versus' for competitive comparisons or 'get_analysis' for retrieving existing analyses. There are no stated prerequisites, success criteria, or exclusions to aid tool selection.

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

• list_analysesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Mentions pagination behavior which helps set expectations for result handling. However, given no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and omits critical behavioral details: it doesn't describe the return format, authentication requirements, or explicitly confirm this is read-only (though implied by 'List').

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with verb ('List'), immediately identifies scope ('your saved SWOT analyses'), and appends key behavioral trait ('with pagination'). Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Adequate for a simple 2-parameter list tool, but given no output schema exists, the description should indicate what gets returned (e.g., metadata vs full content). Lacks completeness on output structure despite sufficient coverage of input parameters.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'pagination' which contextually implies the page/limit parameters exist, but adds no additional semantic detail (syntax constraints, relationship between parameters) beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('saved SWOT analyses'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_analysis' (singular retrieval) via pluralization and verb choice, and from 'generate_swot' (creation) via the word 'saved'. However, lacks explicit contrast with siblings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'get_analysis' for retrieving specific analyses, nor prerequisites for using pagination. The mention of pagination hints at use cases with many analyses but does not constitute explicit usage guidance.

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

• generate_versusA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It specifies SWOT analysis output format (behavioral trait), but omits persistence behavior (relevant given 'list_analyses' and 'get_analysis' siblings suggest storage), reversibility, and rate limit considerations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence delivers core functionality with specific methodology; second sentence provides valid use-case context without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Adequately covers the 3-parameter input contract and core generation behavior. However, given sibling tools implying persistence ('list_analyses'), the description should mention whether analyses are saved/retrievable. No output schema compounds this gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with clear param descriptions. The description reinforces 'companies or topics' semantics for topicA/topicB and implies the comparative relationship, meeting baseline expectations when schema documentation is comprehensive.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  States specific action (Compare) and target (companies/topics) with methodology (side-by-side SWOT). Clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'generate_swot' despite functional overlap.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides implied usage context ('Great for competitive analysis') but lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or references to alternative tools like 'generate_swot'.

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

• browse_examplesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact count (28 examples) and cost profile (no API key usage). However, it omits details about return format, pagination, caching behavior, or read-only safety that would typically be covered by annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (browse examples), while the second adds essential operational context (cost). Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Appropriate for a low-complexity tool (single optional parameter, no nested objects). The description adequately covers the tool's scope and cost characteristics. Minor gap: lacks mention of return structure, though this is somewhat mitigated by the tool's intuitive browse/list nature.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the optional 'industry' parameter with examples. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Excellent specificity: 'Browse SWOTPal's library of 28 pre-built SWOT analysis examples across industries' provides exact verb, resource type, and quantity. The phrase 'pre-built examples' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like generate_swot (creation) and list_analyses (user-generated content).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description mentions 'No API key usage consumed,' which provides cost-based guidance (use this when avoiding quota consumption). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance regarding when to choose browsing examples versus creating new analyses with generate_swot or retrieving existing ones with list_analyses.

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

• get_analysisA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully adds context about what content is returned ('all quadrants and TOWS strategies') beyond the tool name, but omits operational details like read-only safety, error conditions when IDs are invalid, or caching behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, front-loaded sentence where every clause earns its place: 'Get full details' establishes the action, 'saved SWOT analysis' establishes the resource, 'by its ID' establishes the access pattern, and 'including all quadrants and TOWS strategies' explains the payload without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, 100% schema coverage) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the conceptual return contents (quadrants, TOWS strategies). Minor gap: no mention of error scenarios or ID format constraints.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter fully described as 'Analysis session ID'. The description mentions 'by its ID' which reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add significant semantic depth beyond the schema itself, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific verb ('Get'), resource ('saved SWOT analysis'), and retrieval mechanism ('by its ID'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like generate_swot (creation) and list_analyses (listing without ID) by emphasizing retrieval of existing saved content with specific details.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'by its ID' provides implicit usage context—that this requires a known identifier likely obtained from list_analyses—but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus generate_swot or browse_examples, and does not mention prerequisites.

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