everything_search

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.