everything_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden and does a lot: it discloses latency (5-30ms), that queries hit an in-memory index with no disk I/O, the non-obvious defaults (exclude_noise=true, compact=true), and that there is no hard 100-item cutoff up to 5000. It omits prerequisites and failure behavior, e.g. what happens if the Everything service is not running, which the everything_health sibling implies is a real concern.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and the feature bullets are scannable. Several bullets are promotional restatements ('zero disk I/O thrashing', 'eliminating slow recursive terminal scans') that pad length without adding agent-relevant information.

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 13-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers performance characteristics, defaults, and result limits well enough to invoke correctly. It leaves minor gaps around environment prerequisites and error signaling, but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters, making 3 the baseline. The feature bullets for path, exclude_noise, compact, and count largely restate what the schema already says, adding rationale (token savings, clutter removal) but little new semantic guidance beyond it.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Search Windows files and folders') and names the backing engine (voidtools Everything index), which immediately distinguishes it from the only sibling, everything_health. An agent can tell what it does and does not need to open the schema to disambiguate.

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?

It gives clear context for use by contrasting against the alternative an agent would otherwise reach for ('eliminating slow recursive terminal scans (dir /s, Get-ChildItem)'), effectively telling the agent to prefer this over shell-based scanning. It stops short of explicit exclusion criteria, such as when a live index isn't available or when everything_health should be checked first.

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