obsidian_read_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the date default ('when omitted, obsidian-writer uses today') and mentions the configured default vault, adding useful behavior. However, it doesn't address edge cases like invalid dates or vault override behavior, making it adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and date format. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler, earning a 5.

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 simple read tool with an output schema and only optional parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, date format, and default behavior. The only notable gap is the missing explanation of the vault parameter, but given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, this is a minor omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the date parameter format and default ('Date must be YYYY-MM-DD; when omitted, uses today'), but it does not explain the vault parameter at all, leaving its semantics ambiguous. Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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 'Read inbox items for a specific day from the configured default vault,' specifying the verb (read), resource (inbox items), and scope (specific day). This distinctively separates it from siblings like obsidian_read_note (reads a note) and obsidian_append_inbox (writes to inbox), earning a 5.

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 provides a use case: 'Use when the user asks what was captured/saved in the inbox today or on a specific date.' This is clear context, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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