proj_run_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait – export dialogs may open for configuration – and states the return is a confirmation dictionary. It does not say whether generation is blocking, whether files are overwritten, or what happens if the user dismisses a dialog.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the dialog caveat, then args and returns. The docstring-style Args/Returns formatting is slightly redundant given a structured schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and both parameters are covered. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the many export/outjob siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 0% and there is no enum on output_type, so the description must compensate. It does, by enumerating the four valid output_type values (gerber, drill, pick_place, ipc_netlist) and clarifying output_path as an optional directory or file path.

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 verb and resource ('Generate manufacturing output files from the active PCB'), which is clear on its own. It does not differentiate from closely related siblings like proj_run_outjob, proj_run_outjob_all, or proj_generate_fab_package, so an agent can't tell which to pick without reading both.

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 note that Altium export dialogs may open gives practical context about when invocation becomes interactive, which is useful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over outjob-based or fab-package siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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