@bastani/atomic 0.6.8-0 → 0.7.0-1

package/.agents/skills/tdd/mocking.md

@@ -1,59 +0,0 @@
-# When to Mock
-
-Mock at **system boundaries** only:
-
-- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
-- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
-- Time/randomness
-- File system (sometimes)
-
-Don't mock:
-
-- Your own classes/modules
-- Internal collaborators
-- Anything you control
-
-## Designing for Mockability
-
-At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
-
-**1. Use dependency injection**
-
-Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
-
-```typescript
-// Easy to mock
-function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
-  return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
-}
-
-// Hard to mock
-function processPayment(order) {
-  const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
-  return client.charge(order.total);
-}
-```
-
-**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
-
-Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
-
-```typescript
-// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
-const api = {
-  getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
-  getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
-  createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
-};
-
-// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
-const api = {
-  fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
-};
-```
-
-The SDK approach means:
-- Each mock returns one specific shape
-- No conditional logic in test setup
-- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
-- Type safety per endpoint

package/.agents/skills/tdd/refactoring.md

@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-# Refactor Candidates
-
-After TDD cycle, look for:
-
-- **Duplication** → Extract function/class
-- **Long methods** → Break into private helpers (keep tests on public interface)
-- **Shallow modules** → Combine or deepen
-- **Feature envy** → Move logic to where data lives
-- **Primitive obsession** → Introduce value objects
-- **Existing code** the new code reveals as problematic

package/.agents/skills/tdd/tests.md

@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
-# Good and Bad Tests
-
-## Good Tests
-
-**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
-
-```typescript
-// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
-test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
-  const cart = createCart();
-  cart.add(product);
-  const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
-  expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
-});
-```
-
-Characteristics:
-
-- Tests behavior users/callers care about
-- Uses public API only
-- Survives internal refactors
-- Describes WHAT, not HOW
-- One logical assertion per test
-
-## Bad Tests
-
-**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
-
-```typescript
-// BAD: Tests implementation details
-test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
-  const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
-  await checkout(cart, payment);
-  expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
-});
-```
-
-Red flags:
-
-- Mocking internal collaborators
-- Testing private methods
-- Asserting on call counts/order
-- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
-- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
-- Verifying through external means instead of interface
-
-```typescript
-// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
-test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
-  await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
-  const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
-  expect(row).toBeDefined();
-});
-
-// GOOD: Verifies through interface
-test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
-  const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
-  const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
-  expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
-});
-```

package/.agents/skills/tool-design/SKILL.md

@@ -1,273 +0,0 @@
----
-name: tool-design
-description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "design agent tools", "create tool descriptions", "reduce tool complexity", "implement MCP tools", or mentions tool consolidation, architectural reduction, tool naming conventions, or agent-tool interfaces. Part of the context engineering skill suite — also activates when the user mentions "context engineering" or "context-engineering" in the context of designing tools that shape how agents receive and process context.
-metadata:
-  provider: atomic
----
-
-# Tool Design for Agents
-
-Design every tool as a contract between a deterministic system and a non-deterministic agent. Unlike human-facing APIs, agent-facing tools must make the contract unambiguous through the description alone -- agents infer intent from descriptions and generate calls that must match expected formats. Every ambiguity becomes a potential failure mode that no amount of prompt engineering can fix.
-
-## When to Activate
-
-Activate this skill when:
-- Creating new tools for agent systems
-- Debugging tool-related failures or misuse
-- Optimizing existing tool sets for better agent performance
-- Designing tool APIs from scratch
-- Evaluating third-party tools for agent integration
-- Standardizing tool conventions across a codebase
-
-## Core Concepts
-
-Design tools around the consolidation principle: if a human engineer cannot definitively say which tool should be used in a given situation, an agent cannot be expected to do better. Reduce the tool set until each tool has one unambiguous purpose, because agents select tools by comparing descriptions and any overlap introduces selection errors.
-
-Treat every tool description as prompt engineering that shapes agent behavior. The description is not documentation for humans -- it is injected into the agent's context and directly steers reasoning. Write descriptions that answer what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns, because these three questions are exactly what agents evaluate during tool selection.
-
-## Detailed Topics
-
-### The Tool-Agent Interface
-
-**Tools as Contracts**
-Design each tool as a self-contained contract. When humans call APIs, they read docs, understand conventions, and make appropriate requests. Agents must infer the entire contract from a single description block. Make the contract unambiguous by including format examples, expected patterns, and explicit constraints. Omit nothing that a caller needs to know, because agents cannot ask clarifying questions before making a call.
-
-**Tool Description as Prompt**
-Write tool descriptions knowing they load directly into agent context and collectively steer behavior. A vague description like "Search the database" with cryptic parameter names forces the agent to guess -- and guessing produces incorrect calls. Instead, include usage context, parameter format examples, and sensible defaults. Every word in the description either helps or hurts tool selection accuracy.
-
-**Namespacing and Organization**
-Namespace tools under common prefixes as the collection grows, because agents benefit from hierarchical grouping. When an agent needs database operations, it routes to the `db_*` namespace; when it needs web interactions, it routes to `web_*`. Without namespacing, agents must evaluate every tool in a flat list, which degrades selection accuracy as the count grows.
-
-### The Consolidation Principle
-
-**Single Comprehensive Tools**
-Build single comprehensive tools instead of multiple narrow tools that overlap. Rather than implementing `list_users`, `list_events`, and `create_event` separately, implement `schedule_event` that finds availability and schedules in one call. The comprehensive tool handles the full workflow internally, removing the agent's burden of chaining calls in the correct order.
-
-**Why Consolidation Works**
-Apply consolidation because agents have limited context and attention. Each tool in the collection competes for attention during tool selection, each description consumes context budget tokens, and overlapping functionality creates ambiguity. Consolidation eliminates redundant descriptions, removes selection ambiguity, and shrinks the effective tool set. Vercel demonstrated this principle by reducing their agent from 17 specialized tools to 2 general-purpose tools and achieving better performance -- fewer tools meant less confusion and more reliable tool selection.
-
-**When Not to Consolidate**
-Keep tools separate when they have fundamentally different behaviors, serve different contexts, or must be callable independently. Over-consolidation creates a different problem: a single tool with too many parameters and modes becomes hard for agents to parameterize correctly.
-
-### Architectural Reduction
-
-Push the consolidation principle to its logical extreme by removing most specialized tools in favor of primitive, general-purpose capabilities. Production evidence shows this approach can outperform sophisticated multi-tool architectures.
-
-**The File System Agent Pattern**
-Provide direct file system access through a single command execution tool instead of building custom tools for data exploration, schema lookup, and query validation. The agent uses standard Unix utilities (grep, cat, find, ls) to explore and operate on the system. This works because file systems are a proven abstraction that models understand deeply, standard tools have predictable behavior, agents can chain primitives flexibly rather than being constrained to predefined workflows, and good documentation in files replaces summarization tools.
-
-**When Reduction Outperforms Complexity**
-Choose reduction when the data layer is well-documented and consistently structured, the model has sufficient reasoning capability, specialized tools were constraining rather than enabling the model, or more time is spent maintaining scaffolding than improving outcomes. Avoid reduction when underlying data is messy or poorly documented, the domain requires specialized knowledge the model lacks, safety constraints must limit agent actions, or operations genuinely benefit from structured workflows.
-
-**Build for Future Models**
-Design minimal architectures that benefit from model improvements rather than sophisticated architectures that lock in current limitations. Ask whether each tool enables new capabilities or constrains reasoning the model could handle on its own -- tools built as "guardrails" often become liabilities as models improve.
-
-See [Architectural Reduction Case Study](./references/architectural_reduction.md) for production evidence.
-
-### Tool Description Engineering
-
-**Description Structure**
-Structure every tool description to answer four questions:
-
-1. What does the tool do? State exactly what the tool accomplishes -- avoid vague language like "helps with" or "can be used for."
-2. When should it be used? Specify direct triggers ("User asks about pricing") and indirect signals ("Need current market rates").
-3. What inputs does it accept? Describe each parameter with types, constraints, defaults, and format examples.
-4. What does it return? Document the output format, structure, successful response examples, and error conditions.
-
-**Default Parameter Selection**
-Set defaults to reflect common use cases. Defaults reduce agent burden by eliminating unnecessary parameter specification and prevent errors from omitted parameters. Choose defaults that produce useful results without requiring the agent to understand every option.
-
-### Response Format Optimization
-
-Offer response format options (concise vs. detailed) because tool response size significantly impacts context usage. Concise format returns essential fields only, suitable for confirmations. Detailed format returns complete objects, suitable when full context drives decisions. Document when to use each format in the tool description so agents learn to select appropriately.
-
-### Error Message Design
-
-Design error messages for two audiences: developers debugging issues and agents recovering from failures. For agents, every error message must be actionable -- it must state what went wrong and how to correct it. Include retry guidance for retryable errors, corrected format examples for input errors, and specific missing fields for incomplete requests. An error that says only "failed" provides zero recovery signal.
-
-### Tool Definition Schema
-
-Establish a consistent schema across all tools. Use verb-noun pattern for tool names (`get_customer`, `create_order`), consistent parameter names across tools (always `customer_id`, never sometimes `id` and sometimes `identifier`), and consistent return field names. Consistency reduces the cognitive load on agents and improves cross-tool generalization.
-
-### Tool Collection Design
-
-Limit tool collections to 10-20 tools for most applications, because research shows description overlap causes model confusion and more tools do not always lead to better outcomes. When more tools are genuinely needed, use namespacing to create logical groupings. Implement selection mechanisms: tool grouping by domain, example-based selection hints, and umbrella tools that route to specialized sub-tools.
-
-### MCP Tool Naming Requirements
-
-Always use fully qualified tool names with MCP (Model Context Protocol) to avoid "tool not found" errors.
-
-Format: `ServerName:tool_name`
-
-```python
-# Correct: Fully qualified names
-"Use the BigQuery:bigquery_schema tool to retrieve table schemas."
-"Use the GitHub:create_issue tool to create issues."
-
-# Incorrect: Unqualified names
-"Use the bigquery_schema tool..."  # May fail with multiple servers
-```
-
-Without the server prefix, agents may fail to locate tools when multiple MCP servers are available. Establish naming conventions that include server context in all tool references.
-
-### Using Agents to Optimize Tools
-
-Feed observed tool failures back to an agent to diagnose issues and improve descriptions. Production testing shows this approach achieves 40% reduction in task completion time by helping future agents avoid mistakes.
-
-**The Tool-Testing Agent Pattern**:
-
-```python
-def optimize_tool_description(tool_spec, failure_examples):
-    """
-    Use an agent to analyze tool failures and improve descriptions.
-
-    Process:
-    1. Agent attempts to use tool across diverse tasks
-    2. Collect failure modes and friction points
-    3. Agent analyzes failures and proposes improvements
-    4. Test improved descriptions against same tasks
-    """
-    prompt = f"""
-    Analyze this tool specification and the observed failures.
-
-    Tool: {tool_spec}
-
-    Failures observed:
-    {failure_examples}
-
-    Identify:
-    1. Why agents are failing with this tool
-    2. What information is missing from the description
-    3. What ambiguities cause incorrect usage
-
-    Propose an improved tool description that addresses these issues.
-    """
-
-    return get_agent_response(prompt)
-```
-
-This creates a feedback loop: agents using tools generate failure data, which agents then use to improve tool descriptions, which reduces future failures.
-
-### Testing Tool Design
-
-Evaluate tool designs against five criteria: unambiguity, completeness, recoverability, efficiency, and consistency. Test by presenting representative agent requests and evaluating the resulting tool calls against expected behavior.
-
-## Practical Guidance
-
-### Tool Selection Framework
-
-When designing tool collections:
-1. Identify distinct workflows agents must accomplish
-2. Group related actions into comprehensive tools
-3. Ensure each tool has a clear, unambiguous purpose
-4. Document error cases and recovery paths
-5. Test with actual agent interactions
-
-## Examples
-
-**Example 1: Well-Designed Tool**
-```python
-def get_customer(customer_id: str, format: str = "concise"):
-    """
-    Retrieve customer information by ID.
-
-    Use when:
-    - User asks about specific customer details
-    - Need customer context for decision-making
-    - Verifying customer identity
-
-    Args:
-        customer_id: Format "CUST-######" (e.g., "CUST-000001")
-        format: "concise" for key fields, "detailed" for complete record
-
-    Returns:
-        Customer object with requested fields
-
-    Errors:
-        NOT_FOUND: Customer ID not found
-        INVALID_FORMAT: ID must match CUST-###### pattern
-    """
-```
-
-**Example 2: Poor Tool Design**
-
-This example demonstrates several tool design anti-patterns:
-
-```python
-def search(query):
-    """Search the database."""
-    pass
-```
-
-**Problems with this design:**
-
-1. **Vague name**: "search" is ambiguous - search what, for what purpose?
-2. **Missing parameters**: What database? What format should query take?
-3. **No return description**: What does this function return? A list? A string? Error handling?
-4. **No usage context**: When should an agent use this versus other tools?
-5. **No error handling**: What happens if the database is unavailable?
-
-**Failure modes:**
-- Agents may call this tool when they should use a more specific tool
-- Agents cannot determine correct query format
-- Agents cannot interpret results
-- Agents cannot recover from failures
-
-## Guidelines
-
-1. Write descriptions that answer what, when, and what returns
-2. Use consolidation to reduce ambiguity
-3. Implement response format options for token efficiency
-4. Design error messages for agent recovery
-5. Establish and follow consistent naming conventions
-6. Limit tool count and use namespacing for organization
-7. Test tool designs with actual agent interactions
-8. Iterate based on observed failure modes
-9. Question whether each tool enables or constrains the model
-10. Prefer primitive, general-purpose tools over specialized wrappers
-11. Invest in documentation quality over tooling sophistication
-12. Build minimal architectures that benefit from model improvements
-
-## Gotchas
-
-1. **Vague descriptions**: Descriptions like "Search the database for customer information" leave too many questions unanswered. State the exact database, query format, and return shape.
-2. **Cryptic parameter names**: Parameters named `x`, `val`, or `param1` force agents to guess meaning. Use descriptive names that convey purpose without reading further documentation.
-3. **Missing error recovery guidance**: Tools that fail with generic messages like "Error occurred" provide no recovery signal. Every error response must tell the agent what went wrong and what to try next.
-4. **Inconsistent naming across tools**: Using `id` in one tool, `identifier` in another, and `customer_id` in a third creates confusion. Standardize parameter names across the entire tool collection.
-5. **MCP namespace collisions**: When multiple MCP tool providers register tools with similar names (e.g., two servers both exposing `search`), agents cannot disambiguate. Always use fully qualified `ServerName:tool_name` format and audit for collisions when adding new providers.
-6. **Tool description rot**: Descriptions become inaccurate as underlying APIs evolve -- parameters get added, return formats change, error codes shift. Treat descriptions as code: version them, review them during API changes, and test them against current behavior.
-7. **Over-consolidation**: Making a single tool handle too many workflows produces parameter lists so large that agents struggle to select the right combination. If a tool requires more than 8-10 parameters or serves fundamentally different use cases, split it.
-8. **Parameter explosion**: Too many optional parameters overwhelm agent decision-making. Each parameter the agent must evaluate adds cognitive load. Provide sensible defaults, group related options into format presets, and move rarely-used parameters into an `options` object.
-9. **Missing error context**: Error messages that say only "failed" or "invalid input" without specifying which input, why it failed, or what a valid input looks like leave agents unable to self-correct. Include the invalid value, the expected format, and a concrete example in every error response.
-
-## Integration
-
-This skill connects to:
-- context-fundamentals - How tools interact with context
-- multi-agent-patterns - Specialized tools per agent
-- evaluation - Evaluating tool effectiveness
-
-## References
-
-Internal references:
-- [Best Practices Reference](./references/best_practices.md) - Read when: designing a new tool from scratch or auditing an existing tool collection for quality gaps
-- [Architectural Reduction Case Study](./references/architectural_reduction.md) - Read when: considering removing specialized tools in favor of primitives, or evaluating whether a complex tool architecture is justified
-
-Related skills in this collection:
-- context-fundamentals - Tool context interactions
-- evaluation - Tool testing patterns
-
-External resources:
-- MCP (Model Context Protocol) documentation - Read when: implementing tools for multi-server agent environments or debugging tool routing failures
-- Framework tool conventions - Read when: adopting a new agent framework and need to map tool design principles to framework-specific APIs
-- API design best practices for agents - Read when: translating existing human-facing APIs into agent-facing tool interfaces
-- Vercel d0 agent architecture case study - Read when: evaluating whether to consolidate tools or seeking production evidence for architectural reduction
-
----
-
-## Skill Metadata
-
-**Created**: 2025-12-20
-**Last Updated**: 2026-03-17
-**Author**: Agent Skills for Context Engineering Contributors
-**Version**: 2.0.0

package/.agents/skills/tool-design/references/architectural_reduction.md

@@ -1,210 +0,0 @@
-# Architectural Reduction: Production Evidence
-
-This document provides detailed evidence and implementation patterns for the architectural reduction approach to agent tool design.
-
-## Case Study: Text-to-SQL Agent
-
-A production text-to-SQL agent was rebuilt using architectural reduction principles. The original architecture used specialized tools with heavy prompt engineering and careful context management. The reduced architecture used a single bash command execution tool.
-
-### Original Architecture (Many Specialized Tools)
-
-The original system included:
-- GetEntityJoins: Find relationships between entities
-- LoadCatalog: Load data catalog information
-- RecallContext: Retrieve previous context
-- LoadEntityDetails: Get entity specifications
-- SearchCatalog: Search data catalog
-- ClarifyIntent: Clarify user intent
-- SearchSchema: Search database schema
-- GenerateAnalysisPlan: Create query plan
-- FinalizeQueryPlan: Complete query plan
-- FinalizeNoData: Handle no-data cases
-- JoinPathFinder: Find join paths
-- SyntaxValidator: Validate SQL syntax
-- FinalizeBuild: Complete query build
-- ExecuteSQL: Run SQL queries
-- FormatResults: Format query results
-- VisualizeData: Create visualizations
-- ExplainResults: Explain query results
-
-Each tool solved a specific problem the team anticipated the model would face. The assumption was that the model would get lost in complex schemas, make bad joins, or hallucinate table names.
-
-### Reduced Architecture (Two Primitive Tools)
-
-The reduced system included:
-- ExecuteCommand: Run arbitrary bash commands in a sandbox
-- ExecuteSQL: Run SQL queries against the database
-
-The agent explores the semantic layer using standard Unix tools:
-
-```python
-from vercel_sandbox import Sandbox
-
-sandbox = Sandbox.create()
-await sandbox.write_files(semantic_layer_files)
-
-def execute_command(command: str):
-    """Execute arbitrary bash command in sandbox."""
-    result = sandbox.exec(command)
-    return {
-        "stdout": result.stdout,
-        "stderr": result.stderr,
-        "exit_code": result.exit_code
-    }
-```
-
-The agent now uses `grep`, `cat`, `find`, and `ls` to navigate YAML, Markdown, and JSON files containing dimension definitions, measure calculations, and join relationships.
-
-### Comparative Results
-
-| Metric | Original (17 tools) | Reduced (2 tools) | Change |
-|--------|---------------------|-------------------|--------|
-| Average execution time | 274.8s | 77.4s | 3.5x faster |
-| Success rate | 80% (4/5) | 100% (5/5) | +20% |
-| Average token usage | ~102k tokens | ~61k tokens | 37% fewer |
-| Average steps | ~12 steps | ~7 steps | 42% fewer |
-
-The worst case in the original architecture: 724 seconds, 100 steps, 145,463 tokens, and a failure. The reduced architecture completed the same query in 141 seconds with 19 steps and 67,483 tokens, successfully.
-
-## Why Reduction Works
-
-### File Systems Are Powerful Abstractions
-
-File systems have 50+ years of refinement. Standard Unix tools like `grep` are well-documented, predictable, and understood by models. Building custom tools for what Unix already solves adds complexity without value.
-
-### Tools Were Constraining Reasoning
-
-The specialized tools were solving problems the model could handle on its own:
-- Pre-filtering context the model could navigate
-- Constraining options the model could evaluate
-- Wrapping interactions in validation logic the model didn't need
-
-Each guardrail became a maintenance burden. Each model update required recalibrating constraints. The team spent more time maintaining scaffolding than improving the agent.
-
-### Good Documentation Replaces Tool Sophistication
-
-The semantic layer was already well-documented:
-- Dimension definitions in structured YAML
-- Measure calculations with clear naming
-- Join relationships in navigable files
-
-The custom tools were summarizing what was already legible. The model needed access to read the documentation directly, not abstractions on top of it.
-
-## Implementation Pattern
-
-### The File System Agent
-
-```python
-from ai import ToolLoopAgent, tool
-from sandbox import Sandbox
-
-# Create sandboxed environment with your data layer
-sandbox = Sandbox.create()
-await sandbox.write_files(data_layer_files)
-
-# Single primitive tool
-def create_execute_tool(sandbox):
-    return tool(
-        name="execute_command",
-        description="""
-        Execute a bash command in the sandbox environment.
-        
-        Use standard Unix tools to explore and understand the data layer:
-        - ls: List directory contents
-        - cat: Read file contents
-        - grep: Search for patterns
-        - find: Locate files
-        
-        The sandbox contains the semantic layer documentation:
-        - /data/entities/*.yaml: Entity definitions
-        - /data/measures/*.yaml: Measure calculations  
-        - /data/joins/*.yaml: Join relationships
-        - /docs/*.md: Additional documentation
-        """,
-        execute=lambda command: sandbox.exec(command)
-    )
-
-# Minimal agent
-agent = ToolLoopAgent(
-    model="claude-opus-4.5",
-    tools={
-        "execute_command": create_execute_tool(sandbox),
-        "execute_sql": sql_tool,
-    }
-)
-```
-
-### Prerequisites for Success
-
-This pattern works when:
-
-1. **Documentation quality is high**: Files are well-structured, consistently named, and contain clear definitions.
-
-2. **Model capability is sufficient**: The model can reason through complexity without hand-holding.
-
-3. **Safety constraints permit**: The sandbox limits what the agent can access and modify.
-
-4. **Domain is navigable**: The problem space can be explored through file inspection.
-
-### When Not to Use
-
-Reduction fails when:
-
-1. **Data layer is messy**: Legacy naming conventions, undocumented joins, inconsistent structure. The model will produce faster bad queries.
-
-2. **Specialized knowledge is required**: Domain expertise that can't be documented in files.
-
-3. **Safety requires restrictions**: Operations that must be constrained for security or compliance.
-
-4. **Workflows are genuinely complex**: Multi-step processes that benefit from structured orchestration.
-
-## Design Principles
-
-### Addition by Subtraction
-
-The best agents may be the ones with the fewest tools. Every tool is a choice made for the model. Sometimes the model makes better choices when given primitive capabilities rather than constrained workflows.
-
-### Trust Model Reasoning
-
-Modern models can handle complexity. Constraining reasoning because you don't trust the model to reason is often counterproductive. Test what the model can actually do before building guardrails.
-
-### Invest in Context, Not Tooling
-
-The foundation matters more than clever tooling:
-- Clear file naming conventions
-- Well-structured documentation
-- Consistent data organization
-- Legible relationship definitions
-
-### Build for Future Models
-
-Models improve faster than tooling can keep up. An architecture optimized for today's model limitations may be over-constrained for tomorrow's model capabilities. Build minimal architectures that benefit from model improvements.
-
-## Evaluation Framework
-
-When considering architectural reduction, evaluate:
-
-1. **Maintenance overhead**: How much time is spent maintaining tools vs. improving outcomes?
-
-2. **Failure analysis**: Are failures caused by model limitations or tool constraints?
-
-3. **Documentation quality**: Could the model navigate your data layer directly if given access?
-
-4. **Constraint necessity**: Are guardrails protecting against real risks or hypothetical concerns?
-
-5. **Model capability**: Has the model improved since tools were designed?
-
-## Conclusion
-
-Architectural reduction is not universally applicable, but the principle challenges a common assumption: that more sophisticated tooling leads to better outcomes. Sometimes the opposite is true. Start with the simplest possible architecture, add complexity only when proven necessary, and continuously question whether tools are enabling or constraining model capabilities.
-
-## References
-
-- Vercel Engineering: "We removed 80% of our agent's tools" (December 2025)
-- AI SDK ToolLoopAgent documentation
-- Vercel Sandbox documentation
-
-
-
-
-