Oefenvragen

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read-only operation (returning practice questions) without side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or cause external effects. It is safe to assume, but not explicitly disclosed.

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, clear sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse, with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool returns (practice questions with answers/explanations and legal articles). It does not describe response format or pagination, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the provided information is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (limiet, onderwerp, met_antwoord) with 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline 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 that the tool returns practice questions with answers and explanations, distinguishing it from exam questions. However, it does not explicitly use an imperative verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', and the purpose is implied from the title 'oefenvragen' rather than stated as a direct action. It is still readily understandable among sibling tools like 'hoofdstukken' and 'verkeersbord'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'zoek' or 'hoofdstukken'. It mentions it is not CBR exam questions, but that is a clarification rather than usage direction. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'prefer this over X' statement.

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