Scope: General buying framework; examples and official resources are US-focused. Local terms and rules vary. This guide has not been reviewed by a medical, financial or legal specialist.
Evaluate an agent on a bounded task with test data, a constrained set of tools and explicit stopping rules. Measure whether the result is correct and whether the system stayed within permission, time and spending limits. Expand access only after reviewing failures. An impressive example is a reason to investigate further, not evidence that an agent can safely own an entire business process.
Use a risk framework without treating it as certification
NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework is a voluntary resource for managing AI-related risks. It offers a governance context for evaluation; citing it does not make a product certified or reliable. In a procurement decision, translate the risks into tasks that can be observed: what the agent can read, what it can change, which actions require a person and how someone can reconstruct what happened.
Context source: NIST: AI Risk Management Framework
Design tests around consequential mistakes
Start with a permitted task and its successful result. Add cases with missing information, contradictory records, an unavailable tool and text that tries to redirect the agent. Use a sandbox or non-production account. Capture the proposed and executed actions separately, together with the evidence used. Evaluate a rejected or escalated task as a potentially correct outcome when the alternative is an unsupported action. Do not reward task completion alone if the system reaches it by exceeding its authority.
What to compare
Action boundary
The difference between preparing a change and executing it matters. Define authority at the tool and operation level so the user can understand what is delegated.
Ask: Which write operations are possible, and which require approval immediately before execution?
Exception handling
A system needs a safe response when evidence or tools fail. A silent retry loop can obscure the original problem and create repeated actions.
Ask: What happens if a tool times out after accepting a request, and how is duplication prevented?
Audit and reversal
A result should be traceable to its inputs and actions. Ask the process owner what records are required to investigate and undo a mistake.
Ask: Can we inspect a complete action record and demonstrate recovery from a failed test?
Compare the approaches
An editorial decision framework, not a product ranking.
| Approach | When to consider it | Tradeoff to check |
|---|---|---|
| Assistant prepares, person executes | A process with consequential decisions or unresolved reliability questions. | Adds a review step, but keeps authority close to the person responsible for the outcome. |
| Agent executes a bounded operation | A well-specified task with tested permissions, monitoring and recovery. | Requires stronger operational controls and continued evaluation as tools or inputs change. |
Your decision checklist
Mark a question once you have a satisfactory answer. This is a preparation aid, not a suitability score.
Notes stay in this page's memory and disappear on reload. Download to keep your own copy.
Questions that move the decision forward
Is a high benchmark score enough?
No benchmark can establish performance for every workflow. Use it as one piece of context, then test your actual task structure with representative inputs and failures. Keep the evaluation set separate from examples used to configure the system.
Should I start with access to all business systems?
Start with the smallest access boundary needed to test a useful task. Use invented or appropriately controlled data. Add another system only when its purpose, permissions and failure consequences are understood by the responsible owner.
How should I compare costs?
Record the complete task cost, including retries, tool calls, review time and correction. Compare successful, authorized outcomes rather than counting model requests alone. Set an explicit budget limit in the test and check what happens when it is reached.
Sources and boundaries
Sources support the factual context indicated below. The checklist, scenarios and comparison method are Atlas editorial suggestions. A source link does not imply endorsement or product testing.
- NIST: AI Risk Management FrameworkRetrieved 2026-10-25 · Voluntary risk-management framework context; test scenarios and procurement criteria are Atlas editorial guidance.