Lists all field names in a specified Android class from live decompiled code, helping inspect class structure and identify fields during reverse engineering.
List all field names in a class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_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 full burden. It states only the basic function, without disclosing whether it is read-only (implied by name), whether it returns all fields (including inherited?), or any permission requirements.
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 wasted words. It is adequately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from additional structure if parameters were more complex.
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 the tool has an output schema, return values need not be detailed. However, the description omits any mention of edge cases (e.g., class not found) or behavior (e.g., string ordering). It is minimally viable for a one-parameter read tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter class_name (e.g., fully qualified format, case sensitivity, existence requirements). It does not, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the parameter name alone.
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 'List all field names in a class.' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (field names in a class). It directly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_methods_of_class, which lists methods.
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 tool versus alternatives such as get_xrefs_to_field or get_methods_of_class. The description does not mention any preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.