proj_list_outjob_containers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, so the description carries the burden — and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: omitting the path falls back to "the first OutJob found in the focused project." It also sketches the return shape. It omits error behavior when no OutJob exists or when the focused project has multiple OutJobs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the domain rationale, then the when-to-use routing. The Returns block partially duplicates the existing output schema, a small redundancy, but the rest of the prose earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema present, this covers purpose, routing, parameter fallback, and result shape. The only meaningful gap is the failure case (no OutJob found, or ambiguous OutJobs in the focused project).

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 0% (the schema only has a bare string with default ""), so the description must compensate, and it does: the parameter is the path to the .OutJob file, and its omission semantics (first OutJob in the focused project) are given, which the schema's empty default does not convey.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "List all output containers defined in an OutJob file," followed by domain context (Gerber, PDF, BOM grouped into named containers). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling `proj_run_outjob`, which actually executes outputs.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow position: "Use this to discover what outputs are available before running them with `proj_run_outjob`." That names the alternative and the condition for choosing this tool. It does not mention adjacent options like `proj_run_outjob_all` or when-not to use it, so not quite a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.