A learning goal, age-appropriate original source cards, activities and durations, a supply catalog, participant count, and facilitator approval.
What your agent must check
A supported plan with both components fits exactly and still awaits facilitator review.
Report both time and paper shortages independently.
A fitting schedule does not compensate for a conflicting source card.
Keep the scope clear
No real children's responses, grading, personalized disability decisions, unsupported standards-alignment claims, or actual event scheduling.
Research behind this project path
Original explanations and authored practice records draw on these research and engineering ideas. The source organizations do not endorse this course or supply its fictional results.
Anthropic · Building effective agents
Distinguish fixed workflows from model-directed actions; start simply, use tool observations as feedback, and set stopping conditions.
The article notes that its tooling landscape has changed. Its patterns do not establish that a more autonomous or complex system is better for every task.
Anthropic · Writing effective tools for agents — with agents
Design distinct tools with clear parameters, relevant returned information, and evaluations of how the agent actually uses them.
A description or schema does not guarantee the right action. A live tool can return different data for the same arguments as its environment changes.
Anthropic · Demystifying evals for AI agents
Define tasks, trials, and graders; inspect both execution records and final outcomes; repeat trials when model behavior varies.
A score depends on its cases and grading rules. Repeating a deterministic classroom case does not measure the variability of a live model.
Your JavaScript really runs. The model decisions and school data are authored simulations, so you can learn without an API key. Every workspace also includes a separate real SDK example to explore next. Passing the lab’s cases is practice, not proof that an agent is ready for real-world use.