open_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what 'open' entails (e.g., retrieval, expansion, activation), error handling, or output format, leaving critical gaps.

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 with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it lacks necessary detail for clarity, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' means, what the tool returns, or how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for a tool in this context-rich server.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'names' parameter as an array of entity names. The description adds no meaning beyond this, merely restating 'by their names'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Open specific nodes by their names' states a verb ('open') and resource ('nodes'), but is vague about what 'open' means operationally. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_nodes' or 'get_children', leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves, expands, or activates nodes.

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 like 'search_nodes' or 'get_children'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, offering no help in tool selection.

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