Search smali directories with regular expressions to locate API calls, strings, permissions, or encryption logic; results return file and line matches.
在 smali 目录中按正则搜索内容（用于分析 API 调用、字符串、加解密、权限等）。返回 文件:行号 命中。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flags | No | 正则 flags，默认 i | |
| pattern | Yes | 正则表达式 | |
| smaliDir | Yes | ||
| maxResults | No | 最大命中数，默认 500 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core operation (regex search in smali dir) and return format (file:line hits), but omits details such as read-only safety, recursion behavior, performance/limits, or whether it searches all smali files. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and return format. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description supplies the return format. With a simple 4-parameter read tool and 75% schema coverage, an agent has enough to select and invoke it. Minor gaps like truncation behavior or recursion details are not covered, but they are not critical for basic 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?
Schema description coverage is 75% (flags, pattern, maxResults documented; smaliDir not). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 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 (regex search) and resource (smali directory), and lists concrete analysis use cases (API calls, strings, crypto, permissions). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like smali_list_classes or smali_read_class, though the search operation is distinct.
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?
It names the contexts where the tool is useful (analyzing API calls, strings, encryption, permissions), giving clear usage context. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not/alternatives structure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.