get_periodic_note

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses the optional side effect of creating a missing note and specifies the exact configuration files read (.obsidian/daily-notes.json for daily, periodic-notes plugin data.json for others). It does not elaborate on error handling or permissions, but covers the essential behavioral aspects.

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 long, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds relevant details about configuration sources and optional creation without any redundant or filler content.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately specifies the return concept (path and existence status) and the creation side-effect condition. It also covers configuration dependencies. Minor gaps include the exact return format and behavior when configuration files are missing, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by linking createIfMissing to the configured template and listing the period types, but it does not significantly enhance the understanding of the date parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as a 'periodic note' with all period types enumerated. It clearly states the tool returns path and existence status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_periodic_note that perform a different action.

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 establishes a clear use case: retrieving path and existence status for a periodic note. It mentions the optional creation behavior, which helps the agent decide when to set createIfMissing. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_note for pure creation, but the context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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