open_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that the operation returns full entity details including observations and timestamps, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe behavior for missing nodes, or mention any limitations.

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 only two sentences, with the action stated first and the return value second. It is concise, scannable, and contains no filler or redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic action and return content. However, it lacks positioning among sibling read/search tools and, without annotations, omits explicit read-only or no-side-effect statements, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats that names identify the nodes to open, without adding details like exact-match behavior, case sensitivity, or handling of invalid names. The parameter remains minimally documented.

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 is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_nodes or read_graph.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use open_nodes versus alternatives such as search_nodes or read_graph. It merely states what the tool does without indicating when it is preferred or when it should not be used.

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