open_nodes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains depth parameter behavior (exact, neighbors, BFS), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, auth requirements, or data limits. The word 'open' could imply loading or fetching, but mutability isn't addressed.

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 extremely concise, using a few sentences to convey purpose and depth behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is meaningful with no waste.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it does not address how this tool relates to siblings like 'search_nodes' or 'read_graph', nor typical use cases. It adequately covers the core behavior for a focused tool.

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 the description must add meaning. It clearly explains the depth parameter with specific values. The 'names' parameter is only described as 'entities by name' without further detail on format, case sensitivity, or uniqueness. Depth gets thorough treatment; names could benefit from more precision.

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 opens specific entities by name, with detailed depth parameter behavior. It differentiates from siblings like 'search_nodes' and 'read_graph' by focusing on targeted entity opening.

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 use for opening specific entities with optional expansion, but lacks explicit guidance on when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., search_nodes) and when-not-to-use. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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