get_periodic_note_tool

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature, allowed period/date values, and the returned data shape including exists, content, frontmatter, and tasks. It does not explain 'preview' semantics or vault default behavior, but the core behavior and output fields are transparent.

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?

Three compact lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by value grammars and return shape. No filler, repetition of schema defaults, or unnecessary prose.

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 optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it gives value domains, return fields, and an existence flag. The main gaps are vault parameter semantics and the precise meaning of 'preview', which are nonfatal but prevent a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for period and date by listing valid values, but the vault parameter is completely undocumented beyond the schema's default null. The description adds meaning for two of three parameters only.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read or preview') on a specific resource ('periodic note'), and the period/date enumerations make the scope concrete. This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like read_note_tool without needing to inspect the schema.

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 the tool is for periodic notes rather than arbitrary notes, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over siblings or how it relates to them. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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