In what ways is the agents.json file different from an OpenAPI Arazzo specification? Is it more native for LLM use? Looking at the example, I'm seeing similar concepts between them.
We've been in touch with Arazzo after we learned of the similarities. The long-term goal is to be aligned with Arazzo. However, the tooling around Arazzo isn't there today and we think it might take a while.
agents.json is meant to be more native to LLMs, since Arazzo serves other use cases than LLMs.
To be more specific, we're planning to support multiple types of sources alongside REST APIs, like internal SDKs, GraphQL, gRPC, etc.
Thanks, that's helpful. I agree there are many other sources REST APIs where this would be helpful. Outside of that I would be interested in understanding the ways where Arazzo takes a broader approach and doesn't really fit an LLM use case.
It's not that Arazzo can't work for LLMs, just that it's not the primary use case. We want to add LLM enabled transformations between linkages. Arazzo having to serve other use cases like API workflow testing and guided docs experiences may not be incentivized to support these types of features.
To be more specific, we're planning to support multiple types of sources alongside REST APIs, like internal SDKs, GraphQL, gRPC, etc.