maltego_open_graph

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

Annotations are silent (no readOnly, destructive, idempotent hints set), but description adds useful context: parses GraphML, creates entities/links, remembers source path for re-save, and returns summary. No contradictions.

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?

Three paragraphs, well-structured with main action first, then details, then args/returns. Minimal waste, though some redundancy with schema description.

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 simple file-open tool, description includes all necessary context: how it processes the file, what it returns, and integration with save. Output schema exists but description already explains return value.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully covers the single required param 'path' with clear meaning and context (path to .mtgx file). Also notes remembered path behavior beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Open' and resource 'existing Maltego .mtgx file', clearly distinguishing from siblings like create or import. Includes details about parsing GraphML and remembering source path for save.

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 opening existing files only, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like load_graph or import_graph. No exclusion criteria or sibling comparisons.

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