maltego_explain_entity

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

The description discloses deterministic behavior, the type of information returned (properties, notes, degree, neighbours, transforms), and error handling. This adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing the exact output components and scope. No contradictions detected.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the core purpose. Subsequent lines elaborate efficiently without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though some minor repetition with the schema exists.

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 is non-destructive, deterministic, and has an output schema (as indicated), the description covers the essential aspects: input parameters, output content, and error condition. It is complete for an explain tool, though it could mention the return format (markdown vs JSON) as part of the behavior.

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 input schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters (entity_id and response_format). The description's Args section restates these but does not add new semantic meaning. With schema coverage effectively 100% (both parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3, and no additional insight is provided.

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 it explains a single entity including its data, neighbours, and expansion possibilities. The verb 'Explain' combined with 'one entity' distinguishes it from sibling explain tools like explain_scores or explain_transform, which focus on other aspects. The first sentence is specific and actionable.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for explaining a single entity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like maltego_explain_scores or maltego_explain_transform. There is no 'when-not' or explicit alternative mention, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and sibling list.

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