Converts all Ladder Logic (LD) in a PLC project to Instruction List (IL), verifies machine code equivalence for every conversion, and compiles the result into a new deliverable directory.
将工程内全部 LD 依次转成 IL，每次验证机器码等价，最后统一编译交付。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | 源工程之外、尚不存在的新目标目录 | |
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by stating sequential conversion, per-item machine-code equivalence verification, and final compile/deliver; '交付' remains slightly vague but the core side effects are visible.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core conversion and then states the verification and delivery stages; every clause is informative and there is 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?
The operation's steps are clear, but with no output schema the description does not cover return values or behavior if machine-code equivalence fails, which an agent would reasonably need for a verification-heavy tool.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description is not required to add parameter detail. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline.
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 the exact operation: convert all LD in the project to IL, with verification and a final compile/delivery step. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ld_to_il_copy or project_build_copy by signaling batch conversion plus compilation.
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 intended batch use is implied by '全部 LD' and '最后统一编译交付', but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ld_to_il_copy or project_build_copy, nor any exclusions for single-block conversions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.