maltego_explain_why

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is reduced. The description confirms the read-only nature and adds context (uses Investigation Memory, returns error for unknown id), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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 well-structured. It starts with a one-sentence purpose, explains the mechanism, then lists parameters and return value. Every sentence is informative 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 and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return value, and error handling. Could be improved by detailing the output format further, but it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 describes both parameters (entity_id and response_format) with clear descriptions. The tool description essentially repeats this information, adding no new meaning. With schema coverage high, the baseline is 3.

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 tool's purpose: to explain why an entity is on the graph by tracing its provenance. It specifies the mechanism (Investigation Memory) and the return value (transform, triggering entity, reason). This differentiates it from siblings like maltego_explain_entity or maltego_explain_transform.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to trace provenance) and notes that seed entities are identified as analyst-provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternative explain tools among siblings.

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