Opens a URL in Buddy's background browser, keeping it off the phone screen and returning the page as readable text.
Open a web page in Buddy's background browser (a separate browser the user can watch in this chat; it doesn't use the phone's screen). Returns the page as text, like browser_read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The address, e.g. https://example.com | |
| new_tab | No | Open it in a new tab, keeping the current one |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the load, and it does disclose useful traits: separate background browser, visible to the user in chat, does not consume the phone's screen, and returns page text like browser_read. It omits failure behavior, timeouts, and whether navigation state or tabs persist beyond the new_tab flag.
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?
Two short sentences with the key distinguishing fact (background browser, not the phone screen) front-loaded, and the return behavior stated immediately after. The parenthetical is slightly awkward but carries real information.
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 2-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: where the page opens, that the user can see it, and that the response is page text. Missing only edge-case behavior such as navigation errors.
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 coverage is 100%, so both url and new_tab are already well documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantics for new_tab or URL validation beyond what the schema states.
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?
States a specific verb (Open) and resource (a web page) plus the distinctive setting: Buddy's background browser, which is separate from the phone's screen. This implicitly separates it from open_url and read_screen, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 is only implied: 'background browser ... separate browser the user can watch' hints at when to prefer this over a phone-screen tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as open_url or browser_read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.