Rename a specific field in a decompiled Android class by specifying its class, current field name, and new name to clarify reverse-engineered code.
Renames a specific field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| class_name | Yes | ||
| field_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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Renames...' without stating that it modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.
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 very concise at one sentence, but this conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical details. It is efficient but not informative enough for a 3-parameter tool.
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 lack of annotations and param descriptions, the description should provide context about the tool's operation and return value. It does not mention that it modifies state, nor does it reference the output schema (which exists). The description is incomplete for effective 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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond parameter names, leaving the agent to guess the roles of class_name, field_name, and new_name.
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 'Renames a specific field' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_class, rename_method, and rename_variable, which rename different entities.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use rename_field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.