Lists generated artifacts—plans, code diffs, reports, diagrams—from the Antigravity conversation brain directory, optionally by conversation UUID or most recent.
Lists generated artifacts (plans, code diffs, reports, diagrams) in the Antigravity conversation brain directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | No | Optional conversation UUID. Defaults to the most recent conversation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only enumeration and discloses the storage scope, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or what happens when a conversation has no artifacts. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but thin.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the operation and its scope stated first and the artifact examples in a compact parenthetical. No filler, no repetition of the tool name as a standalone tautology.
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 one-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what exists but not what comes back — whether the result is a list of paths, IDs, or summaries, which matters because no output schema defines the shape. It is minimally sufficient rather than 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?
The single optional conversation_id parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including its default-to-most-recent behavior. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does all the work.
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 (Lists) and resource (generated artifacts), and enumerates what counts as an artifact: plans, code diffs, reports, diagrams. It scopes the operation to the 'conversation brain directory', which narrows it against siblings, but it never names read_artifact, the obvious counterpart for retrieving artifact contents.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is left to infer that this is the discovery step preceding read_artifact, and nothing states that other siblings (list_conversations, list_skills) operate on different resource types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.