Read the text of a GUI element

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral detail: each property is independently pcall-guarded, absent properties are omitted rather than erroring, and a textless Frame returns just { Path }. It also documents the exact return shape and failure form.

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?

Purpose and the key property semantics are front-loaded in the opening sentences with zero waste. The trailing metadata lines (Phase, cost, Requires, Produces, Safety, On failure) are boilerplate-heavy but structured and skimmable, slightly diluting an otherwise tight description.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description fully specifies the return shape ({ Path, Text?, ContentText?, PlaceholderText? } or { error }) and the prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target). Combined with the safety and idempotency metadata, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both path (with Luau expression examples and evaluation semantics) and threadContext are already documented in the schema. The description restates the signature but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 (resolve/read) and resource (GUI text properties) and enumerates exactly which properties are returned (.Text, .ContentText, .PlaceholderText). It also names the sibling list-gui-elements as the discovery counterpart, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('inspect exactly what a label says or what a player has typed before acting on it') and a workflow prerequisite ('Pair with list-gui-elements to first discover the path'). It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct contrast with the write sibling set-gui-text, so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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