rename_variableRename a specific variable in a method by providing its class, method, current variable name, and new name to clarify decompiled Android APK code during analysis.
Renames a specific variable in a method.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reg | No | ||
| ssa | No | ||
| new_name | Yes | ||
| class_name | Yes | ||
| method_name | Yes | ||
| variable_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. It says 'Renames' but does not disclose whether references are updated, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions or debugger state are required, or what happens to conflicts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a clear gap.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and not padded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence earns its place only because there is just one sentence.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, preconditions, and behavioral effects.
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 0% across six parameters. The description does not explain any parameter, including required ones like class_name, method_name, variable_name, new_name, or the undocumented reg and ssa parameters.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Renames a specific variable in a method.' It distinguishes itself reasonably from rename_field/rename_class by naming 'variable in a method,' though the sibling relationship is not made explicit.
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 on when to use this instead of rename_field, rename_method, or other rename siblings, and no prerequisites such as needing an active debug session or loaded class.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.