Rename an Android package and all its classes in decompiled JADX output by providing the old and new package names.
Renames a package and all its classes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_package_name | Yes | ||
| old_package_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 renaming occurs but does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on imports, permission needs, rollback possibility). Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
Single sentence, no filler words. Efficiently communicates the core action.
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?
With no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It lacks context about return values (despite output schema existing), prerequisites (e.g., package must exist), and potential risks (e.g., breaking dependencies).
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 has two parameters with 0% description coverage. Description does not add any meaning beyond parameter names, such as expected formats, constraints, or differences between old and new package names.
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?
Description clearly states the tool renames a package and all its classes, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_class, rename_field, etc., which target 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies its context, but there is no explanation of prerequisites or when not to use it (e.g., if package has dependent classes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.