hud_list_states

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output contains state names plus HUD codes, but does not disclose details like response format, pagination, or territory inclusion. This is adequate for a simple read-only list but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds practical value by explaining how the codes should be used downstream.

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 reference tool, the description covers what is returned and why it matters, with annotations covering safety and idempotence. It could be more explicit about whether territories or DC are included and what the response shape looks like, but those are minor gaps for this simple tool.

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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 names the exact resource ('all U.S. states with their HUD state codes'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like hud_list_counties and hud_list_metro_areas because it focuses 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 that the codes are for use with other HUD tools, giving an agent clear downstream context. It does not name alternative lookup tools or exclusion conditions, but for a zero-parameter reference tool this level of guidance is sufficient.

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