obsidian_daily_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns the full markdown content and importantly, returns an error if no daily note exists, clarifying that it does not create a note. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not mention read-only side effects or permissions, which are less critical for a read operation.

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 verbose language. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies output and error behavior. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description sufficiently covers the return value (full markdown content) and the error condition. No output schema is present, but the description explicitly explains what is returned. It could elaborate on the daily note naming convention, but that is likely domain knowledge and not necessary for a minimal viable description.

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 schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning needed. It implicitly clarifies that no arguments are required.

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 reads today's daily note contents, using a specific verb ('read') and resource ('today's daily note'). This distinguishes it from siblings like obsidian_daily_path (which likely returns a path) and obsidian_read (which likely reads arbitrary notes).

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 usage context: use it when you need the contents of today's daily note. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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