DocGen MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create documentation' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if documentation already exists at the output path (overwrites?), or any rate limits/constraints. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create documentation') and includes essential elements ('from source files using a template') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a write operation), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), behavioral implications of the mutation, or how parameters interact. For a documentation generation tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description mentions 'source files' and 'template' which loosely map to the 'sources' and 'template_type' parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., schema already describes template_type as 'Type of documentation template to use'). With 75% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly compensate for the 25% gap or enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Create documentation') and resources involved ('from source files using a template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (list_templates, view_document_history), which would require mentioning it's a generation/write operation versus listing or viewing operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing templates or source files), compare to sibling tools, or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus others, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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