everything_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the search behavior and syntax but lacks explicit statements about read-only nature, prerequisites (e.g., Everything service must be running), latency, or results format. This is adequate but incomplete for full transparency.

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 structured with bullet points and examples, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the purpose and then logically organizes syntax details. While lengthy, every part serves to clarify usage, so it earns conciseness within its informative role.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., what fields are returned, pagination details), nor does it mention behavior when no results are found or error conditions. This is a significant gap for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline descriptions for all parameters. The description significantly enhances the 'query' parameter by listing many syntax options and examples beyond the schema's short description. Other parameters (maxResults, offset, etc.) are not further elaborated, but the query coverage adds substantial value.

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 'Search for files and folders on Windows using Everything.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (files/folders via Everything). The sibling tools (everything_file_info, everything_status, everything_version) indicate distinct purposes, making this tool's role unambiguous.

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 provides extensive search syntax and examples, implying this is the primary search tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., everything_file_info for file details) make the context clear. No exclusions are given, but the purpose differentiation is effective.

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