obsidian_get_recent_periodic_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves notes but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns metadata only (unless include_content=true), how 'most recent' is determined (e.g., by creation or modification date), pagination, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'most recent' means, the return format (e.g., list of notes with metadata), or how results are ordered. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (period, limit, include_content). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining period types further or content inclusion implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 action ('Get most recent') and resource ('periodic notes'), specifying the scope ('for the specified period type'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'obsidian_get_periodic_note' (singular) and 'obsidian_get_recent_changes' (general changes), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving recent periodic notes, but doesn't mention when to choose it over 'obsidian_get_periodic_note' (likely for a specific note) or 'obsidian_get_recent_changes' (for all recent changes). No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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