Get Daily Note

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds substantial behavioral details: path resolution from Obsidian config, defaulting to today, return shape (path, content, exists), and error handling. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

Description is well-structured in two paragraphs: purpose/usage and example/errors/returns. Every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 simple input (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape and provides actionable guidance for both existence and non-existence cases. It covers error cases and integrates with sibling tools.

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 covers the single parameter with description and default. The description adds an example and error message for invalid date format, which aids understanding beyond the schema. Coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the added value raises it.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read a daily note by date' and specifies the vault's configured Daily Notes folder and date format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_read_note which read arbitrary notes. The verb 'read' precisely indicates a read-only operation.

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?

Explicitly states 'When to use: When you need today's or a specific date's daily note.' Provides guidance for related actions: use vault_patch_note to append content, and vault_write_note if the note doesn't exist. It could include a 'when not to use' but the context is clear.

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