Retrieves the text currently selected in the decompiled Android code view, so you can inspect or act on the exact code snippet without manually copying it.
Returns the currently selected text in the decompiled code view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation ('returns') but does not explain behavior when no text is selected or whether it can fail. For a zero-parameter tool, this is acceptable 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence. No extraneous words; every word serves a purpose. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the core purpose, but could be more complete by addressing what happens on no selection or different contexts. Still, it is largely sufficient.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so the input schema is vacuously 100% covered. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools with no missing param details.
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 clearly states the tool returns selected text from the decompiled code view, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from all 27 siblings, none of which retrieve selected text.
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?
The description implies use when selected text is needed but gives no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or edge cases like no selection. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.