Compile H3U IL/LD projects in a fresh copy using original x86 DLLs, verify complete coverage and stable config, then output a ZIP. Works offline without GUI or PLC.
在全新副本中调用原厂 x86 DLL 编译 H3U IL/LD；校验完整覆盖、稳定产物和配置不变，成功后输出工程 ZIP。无需 GUI，不连接 PLC。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | 构建结果目录，必须不存在 | |
| project | Yes | 原工程目录，只读 | |
| install_dir | No | AutoShop 安装目录，DLL 必须匹配已验证指纹 |
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 behavioral disclosure burden and does well by revealing that it operates on a fresh copy, validates complete coverage, stable artifacts, and unchanged configuration, and outputs a ZIP only on success. It does not detail failure behavior or cleanup, but the main safety-relevant traits are covered.
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 a single dense sentence with no filler; each clause adds operational information, the core action is front-loaded, and the environment constraints are concise. It earns its length.
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 compilation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, isolation, verification criteria, output behavior, and execution environment. The main gaps are lack of explicit failure/error semantics and exact output format, but the essential context for calling 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has meaningful inline documentation such as read-only project, dest must not exist, and DLL fingerprint matching. The description adds overall compilation context but no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action and resource: invoking the original vendor x86 DLL to compile H3U IL/LD in a fresh copy, with verification and a ZIP output. It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing copy-based isolation, no GUI, and no PLC connection, which separates it from siblings like project_inspect or native_compile_probe.
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 provides clear usage context: this is for headless compilation of H3U IL/LD using the vendor DLL, without connecting to a PLC. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.