Identify external reference frameworks that AIGF crosswalks to, including entry counts and the number of risks and controls citing each.
List the external reference frameworks the AIGF crosswalks to, with entry counts and how many risks and controls cite each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frameworks | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the scope ('crosswalks to') and the aggregation details (entry counts, risk/control citations), which is useful beyond the annotations alone.
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 states the verb, resource, and output details with no wasted words. Every part of the description contributes to an agent's understanding of the tool.
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 no-parameter list operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it says what is listed and what summary information is returned. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds scope and output granularity without needing to explain any arguments.
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 a clear resource ('external reference frameworks the AIGF crosswalks to'), and it specifies the output shape: entry counts plus risk/control citation counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_framework, find_by_external_reference, and list_risks/list_controls.
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 implies the tool is for enumerating reference frameworks and their citation counts, rather than searching or mapping. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_framework or find_by_external_reference, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.