Open Nodes

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent; the description adds valuable context by disclosing that non-existent nodes are silently skipped, which is not captured in the annotations. This informs the agent about error handling without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core action and output scope, the second discloses a key behavioral nuance. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with comprehensive schema annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the one non-obvious behavior (silent skipping). No further 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?

Both parameters have thorough descriptions in the input schema (names and namespace with examples), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'specific nodes by name' and adds 'along with relations connected to them,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like search_nodes (search by query) and read_graph (read entire graph).

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving nodes when their names are known ('specific nodes by name'), providing a distinct use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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