Generate a Chinese changelog from recent Gitee commits, filling the gap since Gitee lacks a native changelog API. Specify owner, repo, optional since tag, and max commits.
基于最近 commit 生成中文 CHANGELOG（Gitee 无原生 API，靠 commits 组合）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | 最多取多少条 commit，默认 50 | |
| repo | Yes | 仓库名 | |
| owner | Yes | 仓库所有者 | |
| since_tag | No | 从此 tag/分支之后的 commit，可选 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real context: output is in Chinese and the changelog is composed from commits because Gitee has no native API, which signals derivation and potential fidelity limits. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, where the changelog is written/returned, or whether repeat calls are idempotent.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the caveat appended in parentheses. No wasted text.
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 and no annotations, yet the description does not say what is returned (markdown string? file path?), nor how the commit range interacts with since_tag/max. It is adequate for invocation but leaves the agent guessing about the result.
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 all four parameters (owner, repo, max, since_tag) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb+resource: generate a Chinese CHANGELOG from recent commits. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list (stats, stargazers, issues, etc.), though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer. The parenthetical clarifies the generation mechanism.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the repo must have tags, whether commits must exist), and no mention of alternatives. The only usage signal is implicit in '基于最近 commit'. An agent gets no routing help beyond the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.