rechtspraak_cijfers

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 discloses that the tool has no parameters, requires no key, and sends no text, which clarifies its side-effect-free nature. It also enumerates the exact data it returns (metrics, leakage, baseline), giving a clear picture of behavior. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the listed contents suffice for a zero-parameter retrieval tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the primary function, then lists the specific metrics, then gives usage guidance and a critical caution about the baseline, and finally states operational facts. No fluff or redundancy; the structure guides the reader logically from what to why to how.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it fully describes what the tool returns (all benchmark figures), when to use it, when not to, and important caveats (baseline alongside accuracy). An agent can invoke it correctly and interpret the output without ambiguity. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0 parameters and the schema is empty, so the description confirms this with 'Geen parameters'. It adds that no key is needed and it sends no text, which is useful operational context beyond the schema. Since there are no parameters to describe, this baseline of 4 is appropriate and the description adds value.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: providing benchmark figures behind voorspel_uitkomst. It lists specific metrics (accuracy, macro-F1, F1 per class, label distribution, leakage, baseline) and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by stating it is not for assessing cases (voorspel_uitkomst) or measuring text (lekkage_check). This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from all siblings.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use this if someone asks how good the model is, or to check a figure before citing it — not to assess a case (that is voorspel_uitkomst) or to measure text (lekkage_check).' It also provides a critical rule: the baseline must always accompany accuracy, preventing misuse. This is clear when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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