maltego_investigate

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it updates Investigation Memory, auto-detects type, builds graph, and returns a briefing without writing files. No contradiction with annotations, and it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, uses bullet points for arguments, and avoids redundancy. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value for a complex tool.

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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers all key aspects: entity types, parameter details, behavioral effects (graph memory), and return value (briefing string). It is sufficiently complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context, but the schema itself contains detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., depth explains quick/standard/deep). The description adds minor extra context (e.g., 'deep' for 'go deep' requests) but does not significantly surpass what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 'PRIMARY entry point — run a COMPLETE investigation in one call' and specifies supported entity types (domain, email, IPv4/IPv6, URL, bare value). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like maltego_investigate_domain by being a unified entry point.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to investigate anything' and 'This is the default for "investigate X"'. It instructs not to call summarize/list/suggest afterwards and suggests next steps (maltego_save_graph or maltego_export_report), providing clear when/not-to-use guidance.

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