Generate documentation from git changes: analyze diffs, pull context files, and use an LLM to write docs.
Generate documentation for changes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context_files | No | List of file paths to read for extra context | |
| changes_summary | Yes | Summary of changes (diff) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether documentation is written to disk, returned as text, requires permissions, or what side effects occur; it only implies that something is generated.
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 short phrase is concise, but it is under-specified rather than well-structured. There is no front-loading because there is nothing substantive to front-load.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and two inputs, the description is far too thin. It omits usage context, behavioral traits, and output expectations, leaving the agent with only the name and input schema.
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%, with both parameters documented (changes_summary and context_files). The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 when 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 restates the tool name ('generate_docs_for_changes' → 'Generate documentation for changes') without adding scope or distinguishing it from siblings like get_recent_changes or apply_doc_update. An agent learns nothing beyond the name.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The two siblings (get_recent_changes, apply_doc_update) are never referenced, leaving the agent to guess the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.