open_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Open' suggests a read operation, but it doesn't clarify whether this is safe (non-destructive), what permissions are needed, what happens if nodes don't exist, or what the return format is. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every element ('open', 'specific nodes', 'knowledge graph', 'by their names') contributes directly to understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns node data. It doesn't explain what 'open' entails (e.g., retrieving details, expanding views) or the response format. For a read operation in a knowledge graph context, more behavioral context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'names' fully documented as an array of node names. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that nodes are retrieved by name. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('open') and resource ('specific nodes in the knowledge graph'), with the qualifier 'by their names' adding specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_graph' (which likely reads the entire graph) and 'search_nodes' (which likely searches rather than opens specific nodes). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_nodes' or 'update_nodes', which are clearly different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'open_nodes' over 'read_graph' or 'search_nodes', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing existing node names. The context is implied but not explicit.

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