everything_semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the multilingual and fully-local (no network) execution model, and explains how to read relevance output ('>0.6 strong, 0.4-0.6 related'). It also warns that folders end with '\'. It omits latency/performance or empty-result behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the trigger, then result interpretation, parameter note, and a follow-up tip. Every clause earns its place, including the examples which efficiently convey query style.

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 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral ground: nothing about return shape is required, and it explains scores, path_prefix, folder convention, and the chaining pattern. The missing kind/limit semantics are the only real gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it explains path_prefix ('restricts to a drive or share') and the query semantics via examples, but never explains the kind enum (any/folder/file) or the limit parameter. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: meaning-based search over folder names and document file names, plus the multilingual/fully-local scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling everything_search by framing the use case as 'describes WHAT they want rather than a literal name', so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('use when the user describes WHAT they want rather than a literal name') with three concrete multilingual examples, and references everything_search for the folder-listing follow-up. The selection logic against the literal-search sibling is clear.

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