everything_search_wildcard

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

The description clearly explains that * matches zero or more characters and ? matches exactly one character, and that the pattern matches the full basename rather than a substring. This goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, which are not contradicted.

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 concise sentence that directly explains the tool's matching behavior with no unnecessary words. It is well structured and easy to scan.

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 covers the core matching semantics but does not mention result ordering, pagination behavior, case sensitivity, or how filters interact with the pattern. For a search tool with several filter options, this leaves some contextual gaps, though the schema provides some 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 explains the key pattern parameter semantics fully, but does not add meaning for path, kind, limit, offset, or the filter object. Most of these are self-explanatory from their names and schema types, so the gap is modest, but parameter explanations are still sparse.

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 full basenames using * and ? wildcards, which distinguishes it from exact, regex, fuzzy, and similar sibling search tools. It is concise and conveys the core search behavior, though it does not explicitly say it searches files/folders.

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 usage for wildcard-based basename matching, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions such as 'use for wildcard patterns; use regex for regex patterns.' The intended use case is understandable from the wildcard semantics but not fully explicit.

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