Analyze a diff to produce commit message candidates, helping you document code changes accurately and efficiently.
Generate commit message candidates from a diff
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diff | Yes | Diff | |
| model | No | Model | |
| style | No | Style | |
| num_candidates | No | Num candidates | |
| include_analysis | No | Include analysis |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'generate' but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it calls external models, whether it has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The include_analysis parameter hints at optional analysis, but the description doesn't explain what that means behaviorally.
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 concise sentence that states the core purpose. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know what the generated commit messages look like, whether analysis is included by default, or how this relates to other diff-handling tools in the sibling list.
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 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Generate commit message candidates from a diff' states a specific verb and resource, and the title 'Generate commit message candidates from a diff' reinforces it. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like coeus_review_code or coeus_git_diff_review, which could also operate on diffs.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes coeus_git_diff_review and coeus_review_code, which might be confused with this tool, but the description doesn't clarify the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.