maltego_run_machine

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: ensures active graph, seeds entity, expands per recipe, skips missing transforms gracefully, and returns a summary. Annotations declare openWorldHint and non-destructive; description aligns and extends.

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 yet thorough: a clear purpose statement, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No redundant information, and front-loaded with essential details.

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 complexity (running a machine with overrides), the description covers all necessary aspects: prerequisites, process, parameter details, and return format. It also mentions error handling, making it complete for an agent.

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 includes an Args section that explains the purpose of each parameter (e.g., 'e.g. passive_domain' for machine_name), adding value over the schema descriptions. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well.

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 runs an investigation machine, explains the process (ensuring graph, seeding, expanding), and distinguishes it from similar tools like run_transform (single transform) and investigate_* (higher-level).

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?

It provides guidance to use maltego_list_machines for available machines, and describes the behavior (skips missing transforms). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for single transforms use maltego_run_transform), but the context with siblings provides differentiation.

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