Download a Form as XLSForm

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the output is a real .xlsx workbook in the standard exchange format, and the function returns the written path and its size. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, then arguments and return value. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no fluff or repetition beyond an acceptable argument summary.

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 two-parameter export tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it explains what is produced, why to use it, which sibling tool handles the reverse operation, what the arguments mean, and what is returned. No critical operational information appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both uid and output_path are already documented. The description restates their meaning but adds little beyond the schema; it does clarify the return value, but that is output behavior rather than parameter semantics.

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 downloads a form as a real XLSForm .xlsx workbook, the standard ODK/Kobo exchange format. It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the XLSForm deliverable and by mentioning re-import with kobo_import_xlsform.

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 gives concrete use cases: sharing the questionnaire, version control, Excel editing, and re-importing elsewhere. It names kobo_import_xlsform as the complementary tool, which provides useful routing context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to kobo_get_form.

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