Renames a specific variable in a method given class, method, variable, and new name, helping clarify decompiled Android code during reverse engineering.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden, yet it says nothing beyond the mutation itself. It does not disclose whether the rename propagates to all references/uses, whether it is reversible, what happens on a name collision, or what permissions or cache invalidation are involved.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient packaging of detail, so it reads as under-specified rather than tight.
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?
For a six-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin; only an output schema exists to relieve it. The agent gets no help on the two undocumented optional parameters or on the semantics of the rename operation itself.
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, and only class_name/method_name/variable_name are faintly implied by the sentence. The opaque optional parameters reg (register) and ssa (SSA form) receive no explanation anywhere, and no format or identifier conventions are given.
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?
It states a specific verb (renames) and resource (a variable scoped to a method), so the intent is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from its obvious siblings rename_field, rename_method, and rename_class, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus rename_field or rename_method, and no stated prerequisites (must the method already exist, must the variable be in scope). The phrase 'in a method' implies scoping but nothing about conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.