Converts original IL programs into ladder diagrams in a new target directory, then verifies by independently reading back IL, clearing cache, and confirming identical machine code before delivery.
原厂 IL 转梯形图；独立回读 IL、清缓存编译并要求机器码一致后交付。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | 源工程之外、尚不存在的新目标目录 | |
| file | Yes | 工程索引登记的 IL 文件名 | |
| project | Yes | 含唯一 HCP 索引的完整工程目录 | |
| install_dir | No | AutoShop 安装目录；省略时读取 AUTOSHOP_INSTALL_DIR |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does more than the bare verb: it discloses independent IL readback, cache-clearing compile, and a machine-code-consistency gate before delivery. It does not say what happens on mismatch or what filesystem side effects '清缓存' has, so it is not fully transparent.
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 dense, front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then verification condition. There is no filler, and every clause carries operational meaning.
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 description is sufficient to invoke the tool for a straightforward IL→LD conversion with verification, and the schema covers parameter details. It lacks explicit failure behavior and return/output semantics, which matters more because there is no output schema or annotations.
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 100%, so the parameters are already documented; the description adds no per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the tool-level context is useful but does not elaborate on project/file/dest syntax.
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 names a specific conversion ('原厂 IL 转梯形图') plus a verification workflow, so the core action is unmistakable. The direction IL→LD also distinguishes it from the sibling ld_to_il_copy without needing to open the schema.
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?
It gives clear context: this is for converting original factory IL to ladder and delivering only after machine-code verification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the '原厂' qualifier implies the scoping condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.