everything_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains query syntax and filtering behavior (wildcards, operators, filters), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe the return format or error handling. This is a moderate gap for a search tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a well-organized, concise syntax reference. Every line adds value, and the structure uses clear separators and examples. It is appropriately sized for a tool with complex query syntax.

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 is rich in query syntax but lacks details about the return format (list of paths?), pagination behavior, or how results integrate with sibling tools like everything_file_info. With no output schema, this is a notable gap. However, the heuristic nature of search results is implied.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'query' parameter by providing extensive syntax examples and explanation of operators, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Search query using Everything search syntax.' Other parameters rely on schema descriptions, which are clear.

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's purpose: 'Search for files and folders on Windows using Everything.' This is a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('files and folders') and platform, distinguishing it from siblings like file_info, version, and status.

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 sets clear context that this tool is for searching using Everything's syntax. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the extensive syntax guide implies appropriate usage patterns. Given the sibling tools are clearly non-search operations, the context is sufficient.

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