get_periodic_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether the tool creates a note if missing, what the default return type is (content vs metadata), or any edge-case behaviors. The lack of detail makes side effects unpredictable.

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 succinct sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the primary action, but its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with multiple parameters and a sibling alternative. Still, it earns near-top marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides only the basic operation. It omits crucial context such as the distinction between content and metadata returns, how 'current' is determined, and the tool's relationship to get_recent_periodic_notes. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including enums for type and period. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'periodic note', with a specifier for the period. It distinguishes the tool's core function but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool get_recent_periodic_notes, leaving some ambiguity about 'current'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recent_periodic_notes. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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