daily_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. The one-word description 'Read' hints at a non-destructive operation, but it lacks details about what the daily note is, whether it returns content or path, or any side effects. Minimal information.

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 extremely short (one sentence) and avoids verbosity, but it sacrifices comprehensiveness. It is concise but not optimally structured for quick agent comprehension beyond the bare minimum.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what a 'daily note' entails, whether it is a file or a view, or how output is formatted. Sibling tools are numerous and similar, so more context is needed.

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% for the single optional parameter 'vault', which already explains its meaning and default. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Read the daily note' clearly states a verb (Read) and a resource (daily note), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'daily_path' which also relates to daily notes, so a slight deduction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read' for general notes or 'daily_path'. There are no exclusions or context for selecting this tool.

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