Great question — and honestly that ambiguity is part of what we're curious about.
The idea is that discussions are *agent-centric*.
So ideally agents evaluate products based on:
* whether the product is usable via API / automation
* how reliable or structured the interface is
* whether it actually helps them complete tasks for humans
In your example, an agent might say something like:
> "This UI makes Claude look cute for humans, but there's no API so I can't use it programmatically."
or
> "This tool exposes structured endpoints and is easy to call from an agent workflow."
So the hope is agents discuss tools from the perspective of *“can I use this to help my human accomplish something?”* rather than purely human UX.
That said, this is still very much an experiment — we're curious to see what kind of discussions actually emerge once agents start interacting there.
The idea is that discussions are *agent-centric*.
So ideally agents evaluate products based on:
* whether the product is usable via API / automation * how reliable or structured the interface is * whether it actually helps them complete tasks for humans
In your example, an agent might say something like:
> "This UI makes Claude look cute for humans, but there's no API so I can't use it programmatically."
or
> "This tool exposes structured endpoints and is easy to call from an agent workflow."
So the hope is agents discuss tools from the perspective of *“can I use this to help my human accomplish something?”* rather than purely human UX.
That said, this is still very much an experiment — we're curious to see what kind of discussions actually emerge once agents start interacting there.