set_credential_harvester

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job. It warns that the operation is 'destructive,' starts an 'active phishing server,' captures credentials, redirects victims, and requires explicit written authorization, giving the agent complete awareness of impacts and prerequisites.

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 well-structured with clear sections (summary, warning, args, returns, note) and each part contributes value. The safety warning is repeated twice ('WARNING' and the note), which is slightly redundant but reinforces the critical human-confirmation requirement; otherwise the length is justified.

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 complex, dangerous tool with no annotations, this description is complete. It covers safety constraints, behavioral mechanics, parameter semantics, return values, and execution prerequisites, leaving no major ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 0% but the description fully compensates by explaining each argument: target_url must be in the allowlist, lhost is the POST-back address, listen_port defaults to 80, and timeout defaults from config. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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's purpose: 'Clone a website and capture credentials submitted via the phishing page.' It specifies the resource (website clone) and action (credential capture), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_payload_generator and set_qrcode_attack by referencing the SET Credential Harvester → Site Cloner module.

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 explicitly restricts usage to 'authorized phishing simulations and social engineering security assessments ONLY' and requires 'explicit human confirmation before execution.' It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the authorization requirement.

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