maltego_next_best_actions

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the ranking factors (entity importance, information gain, etc.), mentions Investigation Memory to avoid re-suggestions, and states it is deterministic and explainable. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which align with the description.

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 and concise: a clear purpose statement, explanation of ranking logic, explicit supersession, then args and returns. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter), the description covers the input, output format, and decision logic. The expected return structure is described, and the output schema exists for further detail. 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?

The description details the params object with limit (1-50, default 10) and response_format (markdown or json, default markdown), adding meaning beyond the schema which only provides brief descriptions. However, the schema already includes defaults and constraints, so the description adds moderate 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 recommends the most valuable next moves, acting as a decision engine. It uses specific verb 'recommend' and resource 'next best actions', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling maltego_suggest_next_steps by stating it supersedes it with richer reasoning.

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 says 'Use when deciding what to do next' and 'Supersedes maltego_suggest_next_steps with richer reasoning', providing clear context and an alternative to avoid.

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