Letting the LLM write half baked tools is the recipe for burning more tokens.
> There's a wiki the LLM searches before solving a problem, that links saved programs for past actions to their content entry.
What's the criteria for marking an LLM written tool as useful/correct before publishing it?
> Letting the LLM write half baked tools is the recipe for burning more tokens.
> What's the criteria for marking an LLM written tool as useful/correct before publishing it?
Interesting. And is there a mechanism to go back and "fix" the tools after they are published? What happens if the tool decided to use the "id" attribute to click on buttons and now you have a new website that follows a different pattern to find the right target?
I agree that "correctness" of a tool could have different meaning depending on the context of the problem though (e.g. would you consider OOM a correctness bug even if it addresses the user's ask?)