You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
autogen_agentchat.agents.AssistantAgent currently executes a given tool directly. If user approval for the tool is needed, the approval needs to be builtin to the tool itself.
It would be more convenient to have a built-in mechanism to for tool approval. This will simplify many tool use scenarios.
A possible solution would be to emit an ToolExecutionRequest message from the on_messages response, terminate the run via a termination condition, and have user provide a ToolExecutionApproval message back, or through a user proxy agent.
Alternatively, make it part of the autogen_core.tools.Tool and create a tool wrapper class that automatically create the approval boilerplate code around the tool itself.
the approval/confirmation for running query is not.
I believe for approval of running the tool, it should not depend on the agent, rather, it should be built into the tool itself, and have the tool returns a well-formed error message if the user rejects it. It is a general pattern that we may incorporate into the AssistantAgent itself. A PR contribution is welcome!
autogen_agentchat.agents.AssistantAgent
currently executes a given tool directly. If user approval for the tool is needed, the approval needs to be builtin to the tool itself.It would be more convenient to have a built-in mechanism to for tool approval. This will simplify many tool use scenarios.
A possible solution would be to emit an
ToolExecutionRequest
message from theon_messages
response, terminate the run via a termination condition, and have user provide aToolExecutionApproval
message back, or through a user proxy agent.Alternatively, make it part of the
autogen_core.tools.Tool
and create a tool wrapper class that automatically create the approval boilerplate code around the tool itself.Originally posted by @ekzhu in #4886 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: