search

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

The description mentions the use of an external index ('using voidtools Everything index'), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the index is unavailable, or any required permissions. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only partial transparency.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's core functionality, and the second provides a typical use case. No waste or redundancy.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope, and typical usage. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but the schema descriptions for parameters compensate. The description is sufficient for understanding the tool's role within the system.

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 all parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing usage 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'files and folders across the system', and uniquely identifies the tool via 'voidtools Everything index'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'status', which is not a search tool.

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 a clear use case ('Ideal for cross-project path discovery'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. It gives enough context to infer appropriate usage.

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