daily_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the three actions but does not disclose that 'create' may overwrite an existing note, how 'append' behaves when the note does not exist, or what the tool returns. For a tool that can modify or overwrite content, this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no words. The date-format note and storage-location note are both useful and directly relevant to correct invocation.

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?

The description plus the fully documented schema provide enough for basic invocation, but the absence of an output schema and annotations means the tool lacks return-value and safety-context information. For a multi-action tool with create/overwrite and append behavior, the description is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and their meanings. The description adds a little value by emphasizing the accepted date formats and the configurable storage folder, but it does not go beyond the schema in any substantive way.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: get, create, or append to a daily note. The date support and 'daily note' concept help distinguish it from the sibling generic note tools like read_note, create_note, and update_note, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides context about supported date values and the configurable folder but gives no explicit guidance on when to use daily_note versus the generic note-reading or note-editing siblings. An agent would need to infer the intended use case from the tool name and description.

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