obsidian_today

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers: it reveals the get-or-create (upsert) behavior, the conditional template application, and the Templates folder lookup. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't state that an existing note is returned unmodified or what the return value is.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides the conditional template behavior that directly affects what the agent should expect. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and a clear upsert semantic, the description covers the essentials: operation type, conditional creation behavior, and template source. The only notable gap is the absence of an output schema or description of what the tool returns, but 'get or create' strongly implies the note itself is returned.

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% — the schema already documents the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the empty-defaults-to-today behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb pair ('Get or create') and a specific resource ('today's daily note'), making the upsert semantic unambiguous. The template detail further distinguishes it from siblings like obsidian_read (pure read), obsidian_write (arbitrary write), and obsidian_template (template management) without needing to inspect any schema.

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 usage context is clearly implied — an agent needing a daily note for a date should pick this tool. However, the description never explicitly states when NOT to use it or names alternatives (e.g., 'for arbitrary file content use obsidian_write'), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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