everything_search_exact

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: matching the whole basename with extension and explicitly rejecting wildcard interpretation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that is fully front-loaded and contains no filler. It states the core matching rule and the key exclusion (no wildcards) in the fewest possible words.

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 description is sufficient for understanding the core matching behavior, but it does not explain return shape, pagination, case sensitivity, or whether path is supported as a scope limiter. Since there is no output schema, the missing return-value context is a real gap. Read-only annotations reduce the safety burden, but an agent would still need to infer some operational details.

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 description clarifies only the `name` parameter by indicating it should be a literal basename including extension. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is expected to compensate for undocumented parameters, but it says nothing about `kind`, `path`, `limit`, `offset`, or `filters`. The schema and defaults help, but the description itself adds minimal parameter-level value.

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 that the tool matches the entire literal basename including the extension, and explicitly disclaims wildcard interpretation. This makes its behavior distinct from wildcard, regex, fuzzy, and typo sibling tools, though it never directly says it searches for files/folders by name.

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 conveys a clear when-to-use: exact literal basename matching with no wildcard expansion. It also implicitly says not to use this tool when wildcard/pattern matching is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as everything_search_wildcard or everything_search_regex.

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