list_states

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

The description communicates that this is a list operation and adds that counts originate from the measured camera uptime report, which provides useful provenance. However, the 'liveness summary' is not defined, and with no annotations providing safety or behavior hints, some behavioral context is left unstated.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and result, the second adds data provenance. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list operation, the description covers the scope, the per-state grouping, and the two output categories: camera counts and liveness summary. It could define 'liveness summary' more precisely, but overall it is sufficient for an agent 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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('US states covered by livetrafficcam.com'), and it specifies the output contents: camera counts and a liveness summary per state. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like state_uptime or cameras_by_state, but its scope is reasonably distinct.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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