Read Daily Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the environment variable OBSIDIAN_DAILY_NOTE_PATH and the default path, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens if the note does not exist (e.g., error vs. empty content) or whether the note is created on read, which could be a behavioral concern. The 'read' name implies non-destructive operation, but additional context would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the exact note (today's) and the path resolution. It could mention handling of missing files, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap. The sibling tool context is not necessary to disambiguate since the purpose is clear.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. It correctly avoids mentioning parameters since none exist.

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 tool reads today's daily note, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('today's daily note'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'obsidian_read' by specifying 'today's' and providing the path format.

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 usage for reading the current daily note, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it does not say to use 'obsidian_read' for other notes or past daily notes. The guidance is minimal and implied.

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