get_periodic_note

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly adds that the tool may create a note when createIfMissing is true – a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It also discloses the config file locations (.obsidian/daily-notes.json and plugin data.json). No contradictions. However, it does not describe the exact return shape or failure modes, which are minor gaps given the side‑effect disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose ('Get the path and existence status') is front‑loaded, followed by config sources and the optional creation behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description conveys that the return includes 'path and existence status', and it explains the config‑reading logic and optional creation. This is sufficient for an agent to call correctly. It lacks explicit error cases or what happens after creation (e.g., returns path or just status), but the core information is present.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% – all three parameters (date, period, createIfMissing) already have descriptions in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond restating the defaults ('Defaults to today', 'Default: daily', 'Default false') which are already present. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the weight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the path and existence status of a periodic note' and enumerates the period types (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note or append_periodic_note, even though it never names them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and mentions the optional creation side‑effect, but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus a sibling like create_note or append_periodic_note. It gives context (reads config from specific files) but no when‑to‑use or when‑not‑to‑use guidance, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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