everything_search_regex

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the detail that patterns use ES regex syntax and target filenames, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, indexing scope, or result characteristics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a useful example and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 six parameters, a nested filters object, no output schema, and no parameter-level documentation, this description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly beyond the simplest pattern-only invocation. Major aspects like filtering, pagination, and return format are absent.

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 for parameter meaning. It only clarifies the pattern parameter through an example; path, kind, limit, offset, and filters are left entirely unexplained.

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 a specific action ('Search filenames') using a specific method ('ES regular expressions') and provides a concrete example pattern. This differentiates it from sibling tools like wildcard, fuzzy, typo, and exact search variants.

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 example implies usage for regex-based filename matching, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling search tools. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

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