antigravity_list_project_filesLists tracked and untracked files for a given working directory, excluding Git ignore and local exclude matches, to preview project contents.
List tracked and untracked files excluding Git ignore and local exclude matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workingDirectory | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| files | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context by specifying that gitignored and locally excluded files are filtered out. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or how results are ordered/paginated.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the filtering semantics with no wasted words. It is perhaps too terse, leaving gaps, but the structure itself is efficient.
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?
Low complexity (one read-only parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, the meaning of 'eligible for a project copy' is never clarified and the sole parameter is undocumented, leaving the definition minimally adequate.
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% and the single required parameter workingDirectory is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no explanation of what path to supply (repo root? any directory?). The description implies a repository context but does not compensate for the documentation gap.
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 (List) and resource (files) with meaningful scope qualifiers: tracked, untracked, excluding gitignore/local excludes. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_models, tasks, or sessions, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no alternatives named. The title's 'eligible for a project copy' hints at intent, but the description itself never tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus other antigravity list/status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.