I am now very curious how you arrived at this conclusion. Did you make use of any LLM? If so, which model and what prompt did you use?
The toybox build produces a multicall binary, a "swiss-army-knife" program
that acts differently depending on the name it was called by (cp, mv, cat...).
Installing toybox adds symlinks for each command name to the $PATH.> I left busybox due to an argument over GPLv3.
Perhaps, something like:
«Toybox provides a set of utilities like cp, mv, cat, ..., which are each just links to a single binary (a "multicall binary").
In this way `toybox` is like a Swiss Army knife -- several tools combined into one.
Installing toybox adds a symlink for each [of the x] command name[s] to the $PATH.»
The last sentence might be better if it said how many symlinks are added?
Aside, Busybox uses the term "Swiss Army Knife" in their description. Using the same term like that, which isn't an inherent term, might open you up to a 'passing off' claim. Multi-tool, or EDC, may work?