Block until all in-flight async package loads finish, ensuring assets are fully loaded before proceeding.
Block until all in-flight async package loads finish (::FlushAsyncLoading).
Returns: { flushed, async_packages_before, async_packages_after, packages_flushed }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds a key behavior: the call blocks synchronously until loads finish, plus the shape of the result. However, it does not explain why the operation is marked destructive or non-idempotent, which is the most surprising annotation and would benefit from clarification.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the return contract. No filler, no repetition of the tool name's 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return fields (flushed, async_packages_before/after, packages_flushed), and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the unexplained destructive/non-idempotent classification, but for a no-arg synchronization call the definition is otherwise sufficient.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate inputs, and the schema is trivially complete.
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 ('Block until') and resource ('all in-flight async package loads') and even names the underlying operation (::FlushAsyncLoading). An agent can tell it apart from sibling loading/asset tools such as reload_asset_package or list_dirty_packages without opening the schema.
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?
The blocking semantics imply the use case (call it when you must guarantee pending loads have completed), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.