memory_open_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary action (opening a browser UI) but does not mention possible side effects, whether it is a safe read-only operation, or if any external dependencies (e.g., a running server) are required. This leaves some ambiguity but is acceptable for a simple UI-launching tool.

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, short sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It fully communicates the tool's purpose and behavior in its simple context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema already captures everything. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, which is met.

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 specifies the action ('open') and the target ('graph UI in browser'), making it unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling memory tools like memory_save or memory_graph_data by describing a UI action rather than a data operation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as memory_graph_data for retrieving graph data. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues for the agent to determine the appropriate use case.

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