open_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a read operation ('retrieve', 'returns') with no side effects. However, it does not disclose what happens if entities are missing, or any permissions or safety considerations. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states purpose, and the second adds return details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It states what is returned and the input. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., empty names), but for a basic retrieval tool, it provides sufficient context for typical use.

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?

Only one parameter 'names' exists with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal context by referring to 'specific entities', implying names identify entities. It does not explain format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides. A 3 is appropriate as it provides some, but limited, additional meaning.

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 and retrieves inter-relations, with a clear verb and resource. It mentions returns include observations and relations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_nodes or read_graph, which might perform similar retrieval tasks.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for retrieving details on known entities, but lacks explicit context about when it is appropriate or not.

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