gethui — inspect the executor's hidden protected UI container

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial depth: walk behavior (gethui():GetChildren()), depth cap of 3, per-node child cap with truncation counts, and the guard/error contract ({ error } when gethui is missing). That is actionable behavioral detail beyond the structured fields.

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 return shape, and most sentences carry real information. It is dense but a few metadata fragments (phase/cost/idempotency/safety triad) and the "inspect tool-schema for exact fields" line are somewhat redundant with the annotations and schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself and does so fully: { root: { name, class, childCount, children } } or { error }, plus the depth cap and truncation reporting. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three optional parameters and their defaults; baseline is 3. The description restates the signature and notes defaults/constraints but adds no syntax or interaction semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ("Return a shallow tree of the executor's hidden, protected GUI container via gethui()") and explains exactly what that container is — the parent executors hand back for anti-cheat-shielded ScreenGuis. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find-hidden-guis and list-gui-elements, which survey surfaces rather than walk the gethui() root.

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 real invocation context: "Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only. Requires: active-client." and the failure path ("Requires gethui — type-guarded and pcall-wrapped"). However, it never names an alternative or a when-not condition, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over find-hidden-guis or list-gui-elements.

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