open_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions 'expand' and 'return their full details', which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not specify side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is destructive. The lack of detail leaves ambiguity about the operation's safety.

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 that front-loads the action and output. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 minimally complete. It explains purpose and output but lacks details on error handling, authentication, or behavioral nuances. Given no annotations, it could be more comprehensive but is acceptable for straightforward usage.

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 single parameter 'names' is described in the input schema with 'Names of entities to expand.' The tool description adds context by stating the output includes 'observations and relations', enriching the meaning. However, since schema coverage is 100%, the added value is marginal, resulting in an adequate score.

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 states the action 'expand' on 'specified entities' and specifies the output includes 'full details including observations and relations'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_nodes (search) and read_graph (read entire graph) by indicating it expands specific entities to retrieve their full details.

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 full details, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_nodes for finding entities, read_graph for overview). No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are given.

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