search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters but does not mention side effects, performance, or the requirement of Everything being installed. The underlying behavior (e.g., default match_case false) is implied but not explicitly stated in the description.

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 well-structured with a clear main line and a bulleted list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly more concise by omitting obvious defaults (e.g., default 50) but overall efficient.

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?

For a complex tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics but lacks context on return format (output schema exists), edge cases, and behavioral assumptions. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 adds meaningful context to each parameter beyond the schema: query supports wildcards, max_results default, match_case default false, sort_by options. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool searches for files and folders using Everything, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_by_type implicitly but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_folders or search_regex. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., Everything must be installed) or when not to use it.

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