everything_find_files

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.