Inspect an Antigravity conversation's execution trajectory and tool calls to summarize recent actions without loading raw logs into context.
Inspects the execution trajectory, tool calls, and actions from an Antigravity conversation without filling context with raw logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_steps | No | Number of recent steps to summarize. | |
| conversation_id | Yes | The conversation ID to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait: the tool inspects without filling context with raw logs, implying summarized output. However, it does not clarify the exact return format, pagination or step-limit behavior, or any potential side effects, though the read-only nature is reasonably clear from 'Inspects.'
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is efficient, though 'trajectory, tool calls, and actions' is slightly redundant and could be tightened without losing meaning.
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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral benefit, but it does not describe the output shape or provide using-vs-alternative guidance. The max_steps schema description hints at summarization, but the tool description alone would leave an agent unsure what the return value contains.
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 100%, so both conversation_id and max_steps are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond framing the tool's overall purpose, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 ('Inspects') and names a clear resource: 'execution trajectory, tool calls, and actions from an Antigravity conversation.' It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the phrase 'without filling context with raw logs' hints at a distinct purpose focused on summarized inspection.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like agy_get_status, agy_execute, or agy_continue. The description implies a use case but does not state when it should be selected, when it should not, or name any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.