open_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns full details including observations and relations, which implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, absence of side effects, or any required permissions.

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?

A single sentence that communicates the purpose and output concisely. Every word is necessary, and no extraneous information is included.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the action and return content. However, it could mention whether the tool is read-only or has any limitations, but given the low complexity, completeness is high.

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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the 'names' parameter. The tool description adds context by explaining that expansion returns full details including observations and relations, which goes beyond the schema's 'Names of entities to expand'.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action: expanding entities and returning full details including observations and relations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_graph' (reads entire graph) and 'search_nodes' (searches) by focusing on specific entities.

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 implies usage when you have entity names and want their details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'read_graph' or 'search_nodes'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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