list_waardelijsten

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that certain lists return identifiers/URIs and that omitting the parameter lists available names, which are not evident from the schema alone. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or output format, but the nature of 'list' and the described usage make this a minor gap.

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 three sentences, each contributing essential information: the function and list names, the mapping to search parameters, and the default behavior. No redundancy, well-structured, and fully front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the lists, explains how to use them for search filters, and describes the no-argument behavior. It also references the primary consumer tool (search_uitspraken), providing sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 100%, providing the enum and a basic description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the functional role of the parameter values (e.g., 'rechtsgebieden' and 'instanties' produce identifiers for search_uitspraken) and the effect of omitting the parameter, which goes beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists Rechtspraak value lists (waardelijsten) for building valid search filters, enumerating the specific lists available. It also explains the relationship to search_uitspraken parameters, which distinguishes it from the search/get sibling tools.

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 provides clear context: this tool supplies filter values for search_uitspraken, with explicit mention that 'rechtsgebieden' and 'instanties' return identifiers/URIs to pass. It also instructs to call without a name to see available lists, giving actionable guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly address when not to use it, but as a reference tool this is sufficient.

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