get_daily_note

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility and reveals a key side-effect (creates the note if not exists) and how it uses the vault's daily notes configuration. It stops short of stating the return format or permissions, but the critical mutation behavior is disclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the primary purpose first, followed by essential side-effect and configuration details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 get-or-create tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, creation side-effect, and configuration. It could mention the return value or prerequisites like an active vault, but these are fairly inferable from the tool's name and sibling context.

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?

The schema already describes the single 'date' parameter with format and default, achieving 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'specific date' adds no new meaning, so the baseline 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' and resource 'daily note for a specific date,' while also revealing the create-if-not-exists behavior and configuration usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_daily_note and list_daily_notes.

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 implicitly specifies when to use this tool by noting it can create the note if missing, which guides the agent to retrieve-or-create. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, missing the higher bar.

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