What sets it apart is the precision still legible in the ruin: a double row of orthostats, which are upright standing stones used as wall facing, combined with drystone masonry, traces out a floor plan of roughly three metres by two and a half. Five upright slabs on the western side are set at right angles to the wall line, and two larger uprights at the eastern end, spaced about half a metre apart, mark what was once a doorway. A further near-square arrangement of slabs pressed against the outer north-western wall may be the remnant of a second, smaller structure altogether.

The hut sits within an old field system, which places it in a wider agricultural landscape whose boundaries and enclosures still ghost the mountain slope. About twelve metres to the south, a natural cave was modified with drystone masonry and fitted with a pair of roofing lintels, creating a low space three metres deep, less than a metre high, and one and a half metres wide. Its purpose is not settled. The most straightforward reading is that it served as an animal shelter, a common enough use for natural hollows augmented by hand in upland farming contexts. But a researcher named Henry, writing in 1957, argued instead that it functioned as a well. The two interpretations are not easily reconciled, and the question has not been resolved since.