maltego_identify_pivots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, meaning the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds algorithmic detail: it deterministically ranks entities with degree >= 2 and returns specific fields (id, value, type, degree, reason). This fully explains the behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 header sentence, an explanatory sentence, and a structured Args/Returns 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 tool's low complexity (two parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameters, algorithmic behavior, and output format. The annotations handle safety, and the description adds sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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 contains descriptions for the limit and response_format parameters (including defaults, min, max, and enum values). The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats this information without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 since schema_coverage is effectively high despite the context signal indicating 0% (likely a data issue).

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 identifies the most promising pivot entities in the active graph, which are entities with degree >= 2. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like maltego_expand_entity or maltego_rank_entities.

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 explains that the tool finds pivots that connect many others, making them good points to pivot an investigation. It gives examples (shared IPs, central emails), which helps an agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a typical use case.

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