search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that only names are searched (not contents), explains pagination via total_results and offset, details query syntax operators, and specifies behavior for match_whole_word, match_path, and sort. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by a compact but thorough query syntax guide. Every sentence provides value, and the bullet points improve readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 complex search tool with no annotations, this description is highly complete. It covers search scope, query language, pagination, sorting, and edge behaviors. Since an output schema exists, return value details are appropriately delegated, and the description focuses on behavioral context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it extensively explains query, offset, max_results, sort, match_whole_word, and match_path. However, regex and match_case are not mentioned, leaving minor gaps for those parameters. Overall it adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 file and folder NAMES across the entire disk using the Everything index, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from recursive directory listings and the sibling tool (everything_status), making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool instead of recursive directory listings when the target is outside the current project, and instructs to exploit Everything's native syntax rather than filtering results yourself. This provides strong when-to-use guidance and names an alternative approach.

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