Reads parsed to-do items from a note's meeting summary by note ID, returning the source and item list; an empty list means no explicit to-do section was found.
读取从会议总结中明确的待办章节按规则解析出的条目。返回 source 和 items；空列表表示未识别到明确待办章节，不应让模型自由补写。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 笔记 ID，推荐十进制字符串 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the return shape (source and items) plus an important behavioral rule: an empty list means no explicit section was identified, and the model must not fabricate entries. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or error behavior for an invalid id, which keeps it below a 5.
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 tight sentences: the first defines the purpose and data origin, the second defines the return contract and the anti-hallucination rule. Nothing is wasted and the most important constraints are 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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains that it returns source and items and what an empty result means. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only failure modes (e.g., nonexistent note id) are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, including the recommendation to use a decimal string, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads todo entries that are rule-parsed from the explicit action-item section of a meeting summary. It also scopes the tool narrowly ('明确待办章节' rather than any extracted text), which distinguishes it from sibling note readers such as get_note_chapters or get_note_transcript.
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 usage by specifying that an empty list means no explicit action section was found, but it never says when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_note_chapters or get_note. The guidance it does give concerns interpreting results, not tool selection, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.