open_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. The description only states it 'opens' nodes, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what happens if a node is not found. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is borderline too terse, missing important details that could be included without significant length.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., full node data, status messages). Given the complexity of the knowledge graph context and many sibling tools, this lack of completeness hinders effective 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the parameter 'names' as an array of strings. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('by their names') that aligns with the schema. No additional details like name format, case sensitivity, or behavior for missing names are provided, keeping it at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('nodes'), and adds the qualifier 'by their names', which clarifies the tool's action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from other retrieval tools like 'read_graph' or 'search_nodes', leaving some ambiguity.

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 (e.g., search_nodes, read_graph). There are no exclusions or context hints, forcing the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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