Convert an LD file to editable IL and return a new copy only when the compiled output matches the original byte-for-byte, without requiring the AutoShop GUI.
调用原厂接口将指定 LD 转成可编辑 IL，仅转换前后编译产物逐字节一致时交付新副本。无需 GUI。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | 全新转换结果目录 | |
| file | Yes | 索引中登记的 LD 文件名 | |
| project | Yes | 源工程目录，只读 | |
| install_dir | No | 版本指纹匹配的安装目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it calls an original vendor API, requires byte-identical compiled artifacts before delivering a new copy, and needs no GUI. It does not detail failure handling or effects on an existing dest, but the core safety gate and external-call behavior are clearly stated.
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 tight sentence front-loads the main action, then states the critical delivery condition, then adds the GUI note. Every part earns its place with no filler.
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 conversion/copy tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is converted, how delivery is gated, and that it is headless. It could be more complete by naming sibling alternatives or failure behavior, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds global context about converting LD to editable IL but does not explain individual parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific action: invokes the vendor interface to convert a specified LD into editable IL, and qualifies the delivery with a byte-identity condition. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like il_read or native_compile_copy, which involve reading or native compilation rather than LD-to-IL conversion.
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 an automated/headless use case via '无需 GUI' and states the delivery condition, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as il_read or native_compile_copy, nor does it list any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.