obsidian_get_daily_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a write side effect ('or create') for what reads like a getter, which is genuinely informative, but leaves unresolved what 'today' means (timezone/date), where the note lives, and whether a template is applied.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key behavior (get-or-create) front-loaded and no filler. Every word 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description does not say what is returned or how the daily note is resolved. It is minimally adequate for a one-parameter tool but stops short of the detail needed to call it with confidence.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains vault_path. The description adds nothing about how the override interacts with the configured vault, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get ... today's daily note') and even flags the create-on-miss behavior. It is clear on its own, though it never names a sibling like obsidian_read_note or obsidian_append_daily_log to disambiguate when each is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus obsidian_read_note, obsidian_create_note, or obsidian_append_daily_log. The parenthetical hints at the create case but does not frame usage conditions or prerequisites.

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