obsidian_daily_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format and example, but doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, whether it creates a note if missing, or what happens if no daily note is configured. It's minimally adequate but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second gives the return format and a use case. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the result format, provides an example, and explains a common use case. It could mention timezone configuration or whether the note path exists, but these are not essential for a path-construction helper, making this sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds meaning by explaining the output and use case, which is more than just repeating the schema.

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 tool's purpose: getting the file path of today's daily note, with a concrete example. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'file path' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like obsidian_daily_read and obsidian_daily_append, which operate on content rather than just paths.

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 indicates the tool is useful for constructing paths for other tools, giving a clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the use case is sufficiently defined. It doesn't name alternatives, so it doesn't fully reach the level of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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