everything_search

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read operation, so the description's main contribution is the NTFS-index backend and the supported filter families. That is useful context, but it omits behavioral details like failure modes, dependency on the Everything service running, or the content-indexing prerequisite for content search, so it is only a modest addition beyond 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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core purpose and then add the capability list that helps an agent decide what queries are possible. There is no filler or redundant restating of the name or annotations.

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 the rich input schema and output schema, plus annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks only sibling-routing guidance and a caveat that content search depends on indexing, which are not fatal gaps for execution.

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 signal reports 0% schema description coverage, but the actual input schema carries rich per-field descriptions and query examples. The tool description adds a high-level capability summary (wildcards, regex, filters, content search) but does not comment on sort, offset, max_results, or the boolean flags; the schema fills those gaps, making this adequate but not exceptional.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('files and folders'), and the underlying engine (voidtools Everything), so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as everything_search_by_type or everything_count_stats, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool. The broad wording implies this is the general search entry point, but an agent cannot tell from the description whether to prefer it over search_by_type or find_recent.

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