Find hidden GUI containers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial extra context: graceful degradation when getnilinstances is missing (CoreGui sweep still runs), dedup of results, the location taxonomy of each hit, and the exact instance classes matched. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 purpose and scope, then structured metadata (signature, phase, requires, safety, failure). Some trailing tokens (idempotency=read-only, Safety: read-only) restate the annotations and could be trimmed, but overall it is dense and mostly 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the return fields (name, class, full path, hidden location) and dedup behavior, plus the failure path (inspect tool-schema). Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this correctly is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter (threadContext) exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning to threadContext beyond the signature hint, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (surface hidden GUI overlays/menus) with precise scope: nil-parented instances and CoreGui children, filtered to GUI containers. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list-gui-elements or find-hidden-instances purely from the description.

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?

Clearly frames when to use it (anti-cheat/ESP/overlay detection, scanning outside the normal PlayerGui hierarchy), and the getnilinstances dependency is explained. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. get-hidden-ui, list-gui-elements, find-detached-instances) or states when NOT to use it, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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