maltego_find_path

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

The description reveals the algorithm ('undirected BFS'), the output format ('shortest path as a chain of entities with link labels, or a note if no path exists'), and safety implications are already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint=true). 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 concise, well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use case, args, returns). Every sentence is necessary and efficient, avoiding 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?

The description covers the core functionality, use case, and return format. With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. It does not mention performance constraints or graph scope, but for a simple path-finding tool, it is adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description should add value beyond the schema. However, it merely restates the parameter names and types ('Start entity id', 'End entity id') without providing additional context like acceptable id formats or entity types. This adds little to no new information.

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 function: 'Find the shortest relationship path between two entities (undirected BFS).' It provides a concrete example ('does this email relate to that IP, and through what?') and is distinct from sibling tools, which mainly deal with single entities or lists.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Use when: you want to know how two findings are connected') and gives an illustrative example. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools (e.g., maltego_explain_entity), missing some guidance.

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