Generate README content, API docs, or docstrings from supplied code, solving documentation gaps by converting code into structured docs.
Generate docs, README content, API docs, or docstrings for supplied code
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Code | |
| model | No | Model | |
| language | No | Language | |
| template | No | Template | |
| doc_format | No | Doc format | |
| output_format | No | Output format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to carry the behavioral burden, and the description only says it generates docs. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it writes files or outputs text, whether it requires any prerequisites, or how the optional parameters affect behavior.
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 with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary purpose and lists concrete output types, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
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?
For a tool with six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. Key context is missing around parameter semantics, return format, and when to choose this tool over the many related coeus_* siblings.
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 baseline is 3 even though each parameter description is minimal. The description adds some context by enumerating doc types like README, API docs, and docstrings, but it does not clarify what 'model', 'template', or 'output_format' mean.
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 uses the verb 'Generate' with a clear resource type: docs, README content, API docs, and docstrings for supplied code. It is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like coeus_generate_commit and coeus_generate_tests, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.
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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as coeus_generate_tests, coeus_explain_code, or coeus_docs_drift_check. The description implies the use case but provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.