Retrieve recent Antigravity IDE conversations with timestamps, artifact counts, and status from the brain store to review and track activity.
Lists recent Antigravity IDE conversations, timestamps, artifacts counts, and status from the brain store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 usefully discloses the data source ('brain store') and the fields returned, but says nothing about how many conversations 'recent' covers, ordering, pagination, or whether results are scoped to the active workspace.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, returned fields, and source are all packed in. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description does double duty by naming the returned fields, which is helpful. However, the undefined scope of 'recent', absent limit/pagination behavior, and no mention of how it relates to get_conversation_transcript leave gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right call.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the rule sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed since there is nothing to configure and the schema coverage is 100%.
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 ('Antigravity IDE conversations') and enumerates the returned fields (timestamps, artifact counts, status). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_conversation_transcript, though it never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.
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 and no mention of alternatives such as get_conversation_transcript. Only the word 'recent' hints at intended usage, leaving routing to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.