Begrippenlijst

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, although it implies a retrieval action.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant content. It could be more informative about functionality, but it remains efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers parameters. However, the description lacks information about the expected output structure or usage context, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema provides full descriptions for both parameters ('zoekwoord' and 'alleen_cbr'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides the list of concepts needed for the theory exam with short descriptions, and notes that some come from the CBR list. It distinguishes from the singular 'begrip' sibling but does not explicitly differentiate from other list-oriented tools like 'verkeersborden'.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'begrip' or 'hoofdstukken'. The parameters imply filtering capability, but the description does not advise on selecting this tool over others.

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