everything_search_keywords

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful matching behavior: all/any keyword semantics, literal-word exclusion, and that space-containing words are treated as phrases. These traits are not visible in the schema and help an agent predict search behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core search semantics. However, given the complexity of the input schema, the terseness borders on under-specification rather than appropriately sized conciseness.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It omits how filters behave, what path scoping means, what results look like, and how defaults like limit and kind apply.

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 must compensate. It explains the conceptual semantics behind keywords, match, and exclude, but it ignores the remaining five parameters: path, kind, limit, offset, and filters. For an 8-parameter tool this is a substantial gap in parameter-level guidance.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: matching literal filename keywords, with all/any semantics and exclusion. The word 'literal' clearly separates this from the regex, wildcard, fuzzy, typo, and pinyin sibling tools, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 implies the intended use case through 'literal filename keywords' and phrase handling, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings like everything_search_regex or everything_search_wildcard. Context is present, but exclusions and alternatives are left to inference.

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