maltego_explain_transform

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'Full step detail, or an error if the execution id is unknown', disclosing potential error behavior. No contradictions.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and structured details. The 'Args:' section is slightly redundant with the schema but not overly verbose. Could be trimmed slightly, but overall effective.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, required parameter, optional format, return value, and error case. It references the prerequisite tool. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 already includes descriptions for both parameters (transform_execution_id and response_format). The description merely repeats these, adding minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'explain' and resource 'recorded transform execution', and specifies the identifier (execution id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like maltego_explain_entity or maltego_explain_scores, which address different resources.

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 provides context by referencing maltego_list_investigation_steps for obtaining execution ids. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage context.

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