List a reference framework

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results include per-control mapped-area counts and mandatory/advisory flags, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then supplies per-framework detail. Dense but every clause carries selection-relevant information; the count enumerations are borderline but helpful for anticipating output size.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the returned item shape (controls plus mapped-area counts, status flags). It omits sorting/pagination and any note on how the three framework variants differ structurally, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 coverage is 67%, with framework left as a bare enum. The description compensates by mapping iso/pci/swift to their real-world frameworks (ISO 27001:2022 Annex A, PCI DSS v4.0.1, SWIFT CSCF v2026) and by noting the entity counts per framework. lang and response_format are already documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list framework contents) and enumerates exactly what each framework returns, including control counts and whether SWIFT status is mandatory/advisory. The scope is clear enough to separate it from sibling list_* tools, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 statement of when to choose this over corf_list_baselines, corf_list_domains, or corf_search. The agent must infer that this is the top-level enumeration tool 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.