get_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 discloses that the tool 'Handles common daily note naming conventions and file locations,' which adds useful behavioral context about how it locates notes. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if no note exists for the date), performance, or permissions, leaving gaps in 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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and behavioral context (handling conventions), but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't fully address what the tool returns (e.g., note content or metadata) or potential limitations, making it minimally adequate.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'date' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'common naming conventions' in relation to the date parameter). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 tool's purpose: 'Get daily note for a specific date.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('daily note'), and distinguishes it from general note tools like 'get_note' by focusing on daily notes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_recent_notes' or 'list_notes' in terms of scope, which prevents a perfect score.

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 by mentioning 'specific date' and 'common daily note naming conventions and file locations,' suggesting it's for retrieving notes organized by date. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_note' (for general notes) or 'get_recent_notes' (for recent notes without date specificity), leaving some ambiguity.

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