daily_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the YYYY-MM-DD.md convention, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the note does not exist, or what 'information' includes beyond the output schema. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 no redundancy: the first states the core purpose, the second provides the naming context. The description is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description is somewhat adequate but lacks behavioral guarantees like read-only status and error behavior. Since there is an output schema, return structure is covered, but the absence of annotations means the description should be more explicit about side effects and edge cases.

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 covers both parameters (date and folder) with defaults and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the file naming convention, which is a minor clarification on the date format but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 returns information about the daily note for a specific date, with a concrete naming convention. It is not a tautology and is specific enough, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_note or get_note_metadata, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it is the preferred choice over, say, read_note or get_note_metadata, nor any exclusions.

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