maltego_generate_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the report is deterministic and lists the report content, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions, and it provides additional behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet-like list of report contents, and a separate Args section. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 (not shown but mentioned), the description still explains the return type ('str: The full report as Markdown or HTML text'). The single parameter is fully documented. The tool is simple and the description leaves no gaps.

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% (per context), but the description includes an Args section explaining the 'format' parameter with default and enum values (markdown or html). This adds meaningful interpretation beyond the schema's property type.

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 generates a deterministic investigation report for the active graph, listing components like executive summary and key findings. It distinguishes from sibling tool maltego_export_report by noting that this tool returns the report inline while the sibling writes to a file.

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 mentions an alternative (maltego_export_report) for writing to a file, providing usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context of report generation vs. file export is clear.

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