Get KoboToolbox Form Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it details what is returned (deployment status, submission count, available languages, annotated question outline) and documents the not-found error condition, including the token-access caveat.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into Args, Returns, and Error Handling sections. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or redundancy with the annotations. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation inputs, the shape of the response, and the primary error case. It also explains how multilingual forms and response formats behave, which is enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 the schema already explains all three parameters. The description largely restates the schema's parameter meanings rather than adding new semantic depth, though it does reinforce the 'from kobo_list_forms' provenance and the markdown/json distinction. This matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a single form', and enumerates its distinctive content (question structure, section nesting, skip logic, validation rules). This is clearly not a list-forms operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as kobo_export_xlsform or kobo_form_versions.

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 intended use is implied through the return-value description and the hint that the uid should come from kobo_list_forms, so an agent can infer it is for inspecting a single form's detailed structure. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the choice against sibling tools like kobo_export_xlsform to the agent's inference.

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