efs_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses useful behaviors: parallelism, indexing, streaming results, regex/literal matching, and fuzzy search. It also notes performance characteristics. It doesn't mention side effects like index persistence, but for a search tool this is reasonable transparency. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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 well-structured with sections for features, search types, parameters, and examples. It is longer than strictly necessary, but the structure helps scanning. The '20x faster on your i7-14700K' is a marketing flourish that doesn't add functional value, but the overall organization earns a high score.

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?

With no output schema, the description doesn't detail the result format, but it mentions 'streaming results' and uses examples that imply output is a list of matches. For a 7-parameter tool with examples and parameter explanations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly. Missing return structure is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining searchType semantics ('smart': auto-detect), regex/literal matching, and providing examples for parameter combinations. It goes beyond simple schema labels by clarifying the 'smart' mode and filePattern usage.

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 opens with 'Fast parallel search with indexing' and elaborates with search types ('files', 'content', 'smart'), clearly identifying it as a search tool distinct from siblings like efs_list or efs_info. It gives specific examples with parameters, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 search types section strongly implies when to use each mode ('files' for filename, 'content' for inside files, 'smart' for auto-detect). It provides clear context but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like efs_list or efs_read, nor state 'use this instead of X'. No exclusions are mentioned, but the intent is clear enough.

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