This seems like a really bad idea. Agents need to adapt to get good at using tools designed for humans (we have a lot), or use tools specifically designed for agents (soon we will have lots).
But to make your tool behave differently just causes confusion if a human tries something and then gets an agent to take over or vice versa.
On the other hand, if you want to make your tool detect an agent and try a little prompt injection, or otherwise attempt to make the LLM misbehave, this seems like an excellent approach.
i'm this old: i don't think you should name packages in SWE with names that you will eventually cave in and change if the project gets real use.
why would this one need to be changed?
Wasted opportunity to call it: vibrator
This seems like a really bad idea. Agents need to adapt to get good at using tools designed for humans (we have a lot), or use tools specifically designed for agents (soon we will have lots).
But to make your tool behave differently just causes confusion if a human tries something and then gets an agent to take over or vice versa.
On the other hand, if you want to make your tool detect an agent and try a little prompt injection, or otherwise attempt to make the LLM misbehave, this seems like an excellent approach.
Neat! I might monkey patch vitest to show full diffs for expect when being used by an agent