This document records deliberate "won't do" decisions for the project. These are features we evaluated and chose NOT to implement — not because they're bad ideas, but because they conflict with our positioning as the simplest multi-agent framework.
If you're considering a PR in any of these areas, please open a discussion first.
What: Agent A transfers an in-progress conversation to Agent B (like OpenAI Agents SDK handoff()).
Why not: Handoffs are a different paradigm from our task-based model. Our tasks have clear boundaries — one agent, one task, one result. Handoffs blur those boundaries and add state-transfer complexity. Users who need handoffs likely need a different framework (OpenAI Agents SDK is purpose-built for this).
What: Save workflow state to a database so long-running workflows can resume after crashes (like LangGraph checkpointing).
Why not: Requires a storage backend (SQLite, Redis, Postgres), schema migrations, and serialization logic. This is enterprise infrastructure — it triples the complexity surface. Our target users run workflows that complete in seconds to minutes, not hours. If you need checkpointing, LangGraph is the right tool.
Related: Closing #20 with this rationale.
What: Google's open protocol for agents on different servers to discover and communicate with each other.
Why not: Too early — the spec is still evolving and adoption is minimal. Our users run agents in a single process, not across distributed services. If A2A matures and there's real demand, we can revisit. Today it would add complexity for zero practical benefit.
What: Anthropic's protocol for connecting LLMs to external tools and data sources.
Why not now: Our defineTool() API lets users wrap any external service as a tool in ~10 lines of code, and adding MCP would introduce @modelcontextprotocol/sdk as a new dependency plus transport layer management, breaking our 3-dependency minimal principle. However, the MCP tool ecosystem has grown significantly — many services now ship MCP servers directly, and asking users to re-wrap each one via defineTool() creates unnecessary friction. This decision may be revisited when community demand is clear or a lightweight integration approach emerges (e.g., optional peer dependency).
Last updated: 2026-04-07