Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This proposal argues for protocol interfaces to define responsible tool use in AI agents, enhancing reliability and accountability.
AI agents are increasingly connected to software by wrapping existing APIs as tools. Wrappers are useful engineering, but they say how to call a function, not when a call is legitimate, what state must persist, how failure should be repaired, or how an interaction can be audited. We call this the interaction-contract gap . Drawing on multi-agent commitments and contemporary tool protocols, we argue for protocol interfaces: machine-readable contracts that bind capabilities to task state, context boundaries, permissions, repair semantics, and trace obligations. APIs should remain the execution substrate; the missing abstraction is an agent-facing agreement about responsible tool use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharanarthi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: