search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds useful context about speed and the underlying Everything Search engine, but it does not disclose output format, default sorting, hidden file handling, or other behaviors that an agent might need to know.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids fluff and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The schema covers parameters well, but the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of paths, count, etc.), leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description mentions wildcards and regex, which are already covered in the pattern parameter description, adding little extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 by name pattern, using a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the underlying engine (Everything Search) and distinguishes itself from common alternatives like find, ls, and Glob, though not from its sibling tools directly.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool over find, ls, or Glob for faster results, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when to use sibling tools like search_recent or search_by_extension, so it lacks explicit exclusions among alternatives.

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