Skip to content

Conversation

@dgageot
Copy link
Member

@dgageot dgageot commented Jan 30, 2026

No description provided.

@dgageot dgageot requested a review from a team as a code owner January 30, 2026 14:31
krissetto
krissetto previously approved these changes Jan 30, 2026
Signed-off-by: David Gageot <david.gageot@docker.com>

### When to Consider Switching Models

**Switch to a faster/cheaper model when:**
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just one thing here.. how is a given model supposed to know what is faster/cheaper or better at some task? should we just rely on the users giving their model definitions reasonable name?

Comment on lines +25 to +34
Use switch_model strategically:
- For simple tasks (formatting, basic Q&A, summaries), use the faster/cheaper model
- For complex tasks (code generation, analysis, reasoning), use the more powerful model
- The switch_model tool description shows available models and which one is current
- After completing a specialized task, consider switching back to the default model

Example workflow:
1. User asks a simple question -> switch to 'fast' for efficiency
2. User asks for complex code -> switch to 'powerful' for quality
3. Task complete -> switch back to 'fast'
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we expect the example work decently even without this extra prompting, given all the instructions included in the tool? if not maybe we can reduce the amount of instructions, to avoid potential conflicts between user prompts and built-in instructions the users don't see?

mostly thinking about context pollution with smaller/local models and conflicting prompts

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants