maltego_run_transform

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

Annotations provide basic read/write hints, while the description adds key behavioral details: results are added to the graph by default, de-duplication occurs, and it returns a summary or error. This goes beyond annotations by explaining mutation and dedup behavior.

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 with a clear first sentence, followed by a bullet list of arguments and a return value section. It is concise without excess, though the bullet list could be integrated into prose. Overall, efficient and front-loaded.

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 transform, modifying the graph) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains behavior, results, and error handling. It covers de-duplication, graph modification, and return format, leaving few 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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the description's docstring-style listing adds minimal new meaning. Schema description coverage appears high despite context stating 0%, but the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema offers.

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 action ('run a transform'), the resource ('entity in the active graph'), and the purpose ('discover related entities'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like maltego_list_transforms and maltego_expand_entity by specifying the exact operation and its outcome.

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 implies when to use the tool (to run a transform on an entity) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. It references maltego_list_transforms for discovering transforms, which aids usage, but no explicit guidance on comparing with similar tools like maltego_run_machine.

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