open_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns full entity details including observations and timestamps, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe behavior for non-existent names, error handling, or potential side effects.

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 two compact sentences. The first states the action and target, the second outlines the return content. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the primary purpose and return content, which is sufficient for basic invocation. Minor gaps include lack of alternative guidance and absence of error behavior, but these are not critical given the low complexity and existing output schema.

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 schema has no descriptions for the 'names' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates partially by noting the nodes are opened 'by their names', clarifying that the parameter contains node identities. It does not add details about name format, case sensitivity, or handling of duplicate names, but the single simple parameter is reasonably clarified.

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 tool opens specific nodes in the knowledge graph by name and returns full entity details. It uses a specific verb ('open') and resource ('nodes in the knowledge graph'), with scope defined by 'by their names'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_nodes or traverse, which serve related lookup purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_nodes or traverse. It implies that the user must know exact node names, but it does not state this as a prerequisite or suggest searching when names are unknown. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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