List baselines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (three baselines with ids, titles, and counts) but says nothing about auth needs, pagination, ordering, or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering safety, this is an adequate but not rich addition.

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, tightly focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and specifies the returned metadata without repeating the title or wasting words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully carries the expected return fields. However, it omits usage context relative to the many sibling list/search tools and does not explain how lang or response_format affect the output. It is adequate for a simple three-item list but leaves clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (lang and response_format) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not mention either parameter, so no value is added beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the specific resource (the three CORF baselines) and the exact metadata returned (ids, titles, and counts of domains, sub-domains, areas, controls). It lacks an explicit action verb and does not compare itself to sibling list tools, but the resource scope is clear enough to distinguish it from corf_list_domains, corf_list_areas, and corf_search.

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?

It provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools such as corf_list_domains or corf_list_framework. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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