scaffold_transform

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the generation action and the ability to infer output fields from sample_response. It does not mention side effects like file creation, required network access, or constraints such as whether at least one of curl/openapi is mandatory.

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: one opening sentence and a well-structured Args list. It avoids fluff and is easily scannable, with each parameter explanation earning its place.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description omits critical operational details: the relationship between curl and openapi, whether both can be provided, and expected behavior when neither is given. For a scaffolding tool with optional parameters, this ambiguity leaves the description incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: service (optional slug), curl (full command string), openapi (spec string/path), and sample_response (optional JSON). This adds meaningful context beyond parameter names.

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 scaffolds a new Maltego transform module from a cURL command or OpenAPI specification. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transforms or run_transform, which operate on existing transforms.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to generate a new transform module from an API specification. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that no exclusions are necessary.

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