maltego_load_graph

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

Adds detail beyond annotations: mentions that entities, links, properties, and layout positions are parsed, and full round-trip editing is supported. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with loading behavior. No 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?

Front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by an explanation of equivalence and parameter details. Some redundancy with the schema's parameter description, but overall concise and well-structured.

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?

Provides a good overview of what the tool does, what it loads, and that it returns a summary or error. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., file not found) or permissions needed, leaving minor 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 high (the single 'path' parameter is described in the schema as 'Path to an existing .mtgx file to load.'). The tool description repeats this information without adding new semantic details, so no additional value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states that the tool loads an existing .mtgx file as a new active graph for continuing investigations. However, the claim of equivalence to maltego_open_graph may cause confusion between two seemingly identical sibling tools, reducing differentiation.

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?

Implies usage for continuing investigations by loading an existing file, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like maltego_open_graph or maltego_import_graph. No when-not-to-use or selection criteria.

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