list_gui

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is a listing and names the output fields, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether a live play-test is required, or how it behaves if target is omitted.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation, resource, and key output attributes efficiently.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description needs to cover return format and parameter semantics, but it only partially describes output fields and leaves 'target' undefined. The agent cannot fully determine how to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'target' parameter, and the description does not explain what target means or what values it accepts. The phrase 'play-test client' offers a minimal hint, but the agent is left guessing the target's format and optionality.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('PlayerGui hierarchy of a play-test client'), and even names the data returned (positions, visibility, text). This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like get_tree or screenshot.

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 phrase 'play-test client' implies this tool is used during a play-test session, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what prerequisites are required. The usage context is inferable, not stated.

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