get_periodic_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate potential side effects (e.g., creating a note if missing), the default return format, or how the asJson parameter alters behavior. The description only states the basic intent, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values and behavior for edge cases. It does not describe what the function returns (e.g., note content as markdown or JSON) or the behavior when no note exists. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but has notable gaps in return semantics.

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%, so the schema fully documents period and asJson parameters. The description adds the phrase 'specified period' which maps to the period parameter but does not enrich beyond the schema. Hence, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('periodic note'), and scope ('current for the specified period'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like append_to_periodic_note, which is a write operation, and get_file, which is generic.

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 description implies the primary use case: retrieve the current periodic note for a given period. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use append_to_periodic_note for modifications or how this relates to get_file. The purpose is clear enough that a user can infer when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance.

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