maltego_investigate_ip

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, openWorld, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds context: it makes network calls via reverse DNS and host-intelligence providers (Shodan, Censys), and provides an 'allow_network' parameter to control network behavior. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 with two sentences of purpose, structured args list, and return mention. It front-loads the key action. Some redundancy with schema info but overall efficient.

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 moderately complex tool that expands the graph, the description covers inputs, actions, and references sibling for shared behavior. An output schema exists, so not detailing returns is acceptable. It could mention side effects like adding entities to the active graph, but overall sufficient.

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 has detailed descriptions for all parameters (value, max_rounds, allow_network). The description in the text repeats the schema info and adds an example IP and clarifies max_rounds bounds. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds marginal value.

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 investigates an IPv4 address by performing reverse DNS, port, and service discovery. It adds an IPv4 Address entity and expands the graph. It references the sibling tool 'maltego_investigate_domain' for shared behavior, distinguishing its focus on IP addresses.

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 it investigates IP addresses and points to a sibling for shared behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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