You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The urgent non-interactive bug is tracked by #25940, while #26078 tracks the broader strategy. Before changing tool ownership or expanding the public schema, we need a shared map of how every environment-related agent tool works today and what the intended end-to-end experience should be.
This should give the team a concrete artifact for discussing the user experience, backend boundaries, and the transition from Python-owned compatibility tooling to richer Python Environments-owned tooling.
Deliverable
Document every currently contributed Python environment-related agent tool, including:
public tool name and description;
input schema and defaults;
extension and module that contribute and implement it;
internal tools or commands it invokes;
active backend when Python Environments is enabled, disabled, or unavailable;
user-visible UI at each stage;
success result, failure result, cancellation behavior, and known blocking paths;
whether auto-approval changes any part of the flow.
Include current and ideal sequence diagrams covering at least:
reuse of an already selected environment;
automatic environment creation;
ambiguous environment selection;
dependency installation where applicable;
cancellation and failure;
Python Environments enabled, disabled, and unavailable.
The ideal flow should show where agent intent, capability discovery, validation, creation, selection, dependency installation, and verification belong. Clearly distinguish Chat-host approval from extension-owned interaction.
Questions to answer
Which behaviors belong in the Python compatibility tool versus Python Environments?
Which current tool names imply behavior that their implementations do not guarantee?
Where can an agent currently receive success without the intended environment being created and selected?
What capabilities can both backends honestly support during transition?
What should happen to tool identities when Python Environments becomes the default owner?
Acceptance criteria
The map covers all contributed environment-related agent tools and backend routes.
Current and ideal flows are understandable without reading the implementation.
Differences between enabled, disabled, and unavailable Python Environments are explicit.
Gaps and ownership decisions are listed separately from proposed API design.
Background
The urgent non-interactive bug is tracked by #25940, while #26078 tracks the broader strategy. Before changing tool ownership or expanding the public schema, we need a shared map of how every environment-related agent tool works today and what the intended end-to-end experience should be.
This should give the team a concrete artifact for discussing the user experience, backend boundaries, and the transition from Python-owned compatibility tooling to richer Python Environments-owned tooling.
Deliverable
Document every currently contributed Python environment-related agent tool, including:
Include current and ideal sequence diagrams covering at least:
The ideal flow should show where agent intent, capability discovery, validation, creation, selection, dependency installation, and verification belong. Clearly distinguish Chat-host approval from extension-owned interaction.
Questions to answer
Acceptance criteria