everything_search_fuzzy

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral nuance. It adds the important trait that literal characters are escaped, and clarifies matching semantics such as subsequence and unordered keywords. This goes beyond the structured fields and meaningfully informs an agent about edge cases like special characters.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately give a routing rule for a common confusion (typos vs fuzzy matching). Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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?

Given a 7-parameter schema with zero parameter descriptions and no output schema, this description is too thin to fully equip an agent. It lacks guidance on path scoping, result limiting, filter usage, and how this fuzzy search relates to the many sibling search tools. The nested Filters schema has some explanatory text, but the main description does not compensate for the overall low coverage.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It touches on the 'mode' parameter by naming its three values, and the phrase 'unordered keywords' adds a little extra meaning. But it does not explain 'path', 'kind', 'limit', 'offset', or the 'filters' object, leaving most of the tool's parameters underspecified for an agent.

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 identifies the resource ('filename') and the core behavior ('subsequence, substring, or unordered keywords'), so an agent can tell this is a fuzzy filename search. It also directs spelling-error cases to search_typo, providing one concrete sibling distinction. However, it does not contrast this tool with other close siblings like everything_search_exact, everything_search_wildcard, or everything_search_regex, so differentiation is incomplete.

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 a clear usage context: fuzzy filename matching across three modes, with an explicit exclusion ('use search_typo for spelling errors'). This is helpful but only partially routes among the many sibling search tools; it does not specify when to prefer fuzzy over exact, regex, wildcard, or keyword-specific search variants.

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