hud_list_states

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds the practical detail that the codes are intended for reuse with other HUD tools. However, it does not describe the return format or whether non-state territories are included, and annotations already cover the read-only nature.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, and the second provides a clear usage directive.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool, the description adequately conveys what is returned (states and HUD codes) and why it matters. It could optionally mention the exact code format or scope, but the tool is simple and the description is sufficient for basic use.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the output (state names and HUD state codes), which is more relevant here than parameter details.

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 specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('all U.S. states with their HUD state codes'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling HUD list tools like hud_list_counties and hud_list_metro_areas by focusing specifically on states.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: to obtain HUD state codes for use with other HUD tools. It does not name alternative tools or give exclusions, but for a simple reference list this is sufficient context.

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