open_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'open specific nodes' without disclosing read-only status, side effects, permissions required, or what happens to the nodes (e.g., are they returned as data? marked as active?). This is insufficient for a tool that interacts with a knowledge graph.

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 sentence that states the core action and resource. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly improved by adding key constraints without becoming verbose.

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 lack of annotations, the description does not explain what 'open' returns or modifies. Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits expected outcomes. Compared to sibling tools, it is inadequately specified for an operation on graph nodes.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the `names` parameter. The description adds only 'by their names', which does not specify expected format, uniqueness, case sensitivity, or behavior for missing nodes. With a single required parameter, more detail is needed.

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 verb 'open' and the resource 'nodes in the knowledge graph', and specifies the selection method 'by their names'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, delete, or search nodes, but 'open' could be more precise (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'fetch').

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `search_nodes` or `read_graph`. It does not state prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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