open_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-like operation ('open') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what happens if names are not found, or whether it returns full node structures. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 immediately conveys the action and target. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks context about how this tool relates to siblings like read_graph or search_nodes. An agent may not know whether to use open_nodes for a full-graph read or for retrieving specific entities, leaving ambiguity in a larger tool ecosystem.

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 covers the only parameter 'names' fully with a description ('An array of entity names to retrieve'), and the tool description reiterates this by saying 'by their names.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: 'Open specific nodes' in the knowledge graph by name. The verb 'open' and resource 'nodes' are specific, and 'by their names' indicates a lookup operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like read_graph or search_nodes, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use search_nodes when you don't know exact names.' This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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