SWOTPal — SWOT Analysis

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.