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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that users need not construct complex Everything query syntax, which implies abstraction/convenience, but it does not disclose return format, result limits, performance characteristics, or whether this depends on the Everything service being running. Some behavioral context is implied but not explicit.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the tool's core value and the main filters. It is concise, but it misses a short usage note comparing it to siblings, which would have made it more complete without bloat.

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?

For an 11-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It explains the general purpose but does not cover result behavior, pagination semantics, default sort/order, or how to choose among sibling tools. The schema provides some parameter detail, but the overall call context is only partially defined.

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 64% of parameters, leaving several parameters (sort, offset, ascending, max_results) without individual descriptions. The description does not add meaning for those unexplained parameters beyond the schema, and it does not compensate for the 36% gap. It adds at most a high-level hint that filtering is by name/extension/directory/date/size.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (files) with a list of concrete filters (filename, extension, directory location, date range, size range). Clearly differentiates from sibling everything_find_folders which targets folders.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as everything_search. The described capability implies a file-focused search tool, but the agent is left to infer when to choose this over everything_search or everything_find_folders.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that searching is by name keyword and an optional parent directory, which is useful, but it does not disclose match semantics (exact, substring, wildcard), result shape, pagination behavior, or system-level assumptions. The high-level behavior is clear, but important details are missing.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and the primary optional filter, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what a caller receives and how search behavior works. It does not explain what happens when 'name' is omitted, whether wildcard patterns are supported, or how results are returned and ordered. The tool is not complex, but the current description leaves several practical questions unanswered.

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 only 33%, and the description only re-emphasizes 'name' and 'parent_directory' without adding detail. It does not explain the semantics of 'sort', 'offset', 'ascending', or 'max_results', leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and defaults alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('folders and directories') and states the main search criteria ('by name keyword and optional parent directory'). It is easy to distinguish from everything_find_files, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 about when to use this tool instead of everything_find_files or everything_search. The description implies it is for folder searches but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned ('complete indexing metadata and filesystem stats') but does not indicate side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error behavior (e.g., non-existent path handling), or any performance considerations. The description is too sparse to be transparent 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 front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant wording or extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool with one parameter.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does, but it omits details about the return structure (what 'complete indexing metadata and filesystem stats' exactly includes), potential errors, and how it integrates with sibling tools. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, some additional context would be beneficial, but the core purpose is covered.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'path', including an example. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify format restrictions, encoding, or relative vs absolute paths. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, this meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the exact resource ('complete indexing metadata and filesystem stats for a specific file or folder path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'everything_search' or 'everything_find_files', which operate on queries rather than a given path. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 over alternatives. It does not mention that it is for direct path lookups versus searching, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer from the name and description that this is for path-based metadata retrieval, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does disclose two useful behaviors — line numbering and binary detection — and 'preview' implies a read-only operation. Yet it doesn't specify the return format, how binary detection manifests in output, or any other limits beyond schema bounds.

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?

A single sentence with a front-loaded verb and object, followed by two compact behavioral details. Every phrase contributes information; there is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant background.

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?

For a small previw toolwith 100% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and two salient behaviors. It falls slightly short on return-value expectations and explicit exclusions, but an agent can still invoke it correctly using the schema and this description.

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 the baseline is 3; all three parameters are fully documented with defaults, bounds, and a required flag. The description adds no additional param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides — 'line numbering' is a behavior, not a parameter detail.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource — 'Previw text content of a file' — and clarifies the locating context, 'via Everything search'. This distinguishes it from the sibling search/find/status/info tools, none of which preview file content. The secondary detail about line numbering and binary detection further sharpens the purpose.

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 phrase 'located via Everything search' implies the tool is intended for use after a search has provided a path, and that its role is previewing rather than searching or metadata retrieval. However, there are no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions such as handling of non-text files.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states it is 'ultra-fast' and supports full Everything syntax, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only (no modifications), nor does it describe response format, performance limits, or edge cases. It adds minimal value beyond what the name and schema already suggest.

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 tight two-sentence block. It front-loads the core function, then immediately gives illustrative examples. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's capability. There is no filler, making it a model of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent receives (e.g., a list of matching paths). It does not. It also omits platform constraints (Everything is Windows-only) and any caveats about index freshness. While the parameter schema is comprehensive, the lack of return-information and platform context leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by teaching the query syntax with representative examples ('ext:ts;js', 'size:>100mb', 'dm:today'), which helps the agent understand the expressive power of the query parameter. This adds meaningful semantic insight beyond the schema's dry examples.

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 searches files and folders using the Everything engine, and provides concrete syntax examples (wildcards, ext:ts;js, size:>10mb). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like everything_find_files or everything_find_folders, but the generic phrasing implies it is the broad search entry point, which is sufficient for purpose clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that everything_find_files is for files-only or everything_find_folders for folders-only, nor does it explain any trade-offs. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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

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 only states what is checked, without revealing potential side effects, network dependencies, authentication requirements, or response behavior beyond the listed data points.

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?

A single concise sentence that leads with the action and immediately enumerates the exact data returned. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and the data areas it reports. It would be slightly stronger if it mentioned the format or structure of the status response, but for a parameterless status check it is largely complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed because the tool requires no input.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and names three concrete resources: connection status, total indexed items, and HTTP server endpoint info. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from the sibling search/find/preview tools, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'Check' implies use for monitoring status, but the description does not state use cases, exclusions, or how it relates to the sibling tools.

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