theharvester_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it queries multiple public data sources, is passive, and notes that shodan needs an API key. It also mentions the allowed_hosts configuration requirement. It does not cover potential rate limits, timeout behavior, or error handling, but the main safety and prerequisite info is present.

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 header sections (Args, Returns, Note) and no unnecessary filler. Each sentence adds value, and the most important info (purpose and passivity) is front-loaded.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is thorough: it explains all parameters, notes operational constraints (allowed_hosts, API key), and describes return values. Despite the existence of an output schema, this description remains self-sufficient and complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does excellently with an Args section explaining each parameter, including the list of available sources, the meaning of limit, and the timeout override. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gather') and resource ('OSINT data') and names the tool 'theHarvester', making its function unmistakable. It also differentiates from other recon tools by stating it queries public data sources passively, which is distinct from active scanning 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?

Provides clear context: 'Passive OSINT — does NOT interact directly with the target' and requires the target to be in allowed_hosts. This signals when to use it (passive recon) and highlights a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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