mcp-obsidian-planner

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 key behavioral traits: it creates from a template and returns existing notes if already created, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or template specifics, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by important behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (creation with fallback), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and behavior but misses details like output format, error cases, or template interaction, leaving room for improvement.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'date' parameter with format and default. The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it only mentions the default implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Create a daily note from template') and resource ('daily note'), distinguishing it from siblings like daily_get (retrieval) or weekly_create (different timeframe). It also mentions the fallback behavior ('Returns existing note if already created'), which adds specificity.

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 generating daily notes, with a default date of today, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like weekly_create or note_read. It provides clear context for its primary function but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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