open_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool retrieves entities and their direct relations, implying a read-only operation. No contradictions exist. While additional details (e.g., performance, pagination) could enhance transparency, the core behavior is well communicated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the essential action and scope efficiently, earning its place without any filler.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, presence of an output schema), the description adequately conveys the main functionality. However, it could be slightly improved by clarifying how 'direct relations' are defined, especially to differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_graph'.

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 input schema already documents the 'names' parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking 'by name' to the parameter, but does not provide additional constraints, formatting, or examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource ('entities by name') and scope ('their direct relations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_nodes' (likely broader search) and 'read_graph' (likely all nodes) by specifying retrieval by name with relations.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_nodes' or 'read_graph'. It does not state prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.

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