open_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states a retrieval action without details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or side effects. It fails to describe what 'open' entails (e.g., read-only, returns data) beyond the vague '조회합니다' (retrieves), making it inadequate for a tool with unknown 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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential details on behavior, parameters, and differentiation, failing to provide enough context for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no meaning beyond the schema. It mentions '특정 이름' (specific names) which aligns with the 'names' parameter but provides no details on format, constraints, or examples, leaving the single required parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 '특정 이름의 엔티티들을 조회합니다' (Retrieves entities with specific names) states a general purpose but is vague about what 'entities' are and lacks differentiation from siblings like 'get_entity_names', 'list_entities', or 'search_nodes'. It restates the tool name 'open_nodes' only loosely, avoiding tautology but providing minimal specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_nodes' or 'list_entities'. The description implies usage for retrieving entities by name but does not specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on sibling tool names alone.

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