The primary obstacle for tools like OpenAI's Atlas isn't technical capability but the user's workload. The time, effort, and security risk required to verify an AI agent's autonomous actions often exceed the time it would take for a human to perform the task themselves, limiting practical use cases.

Instead of waiting for AI models to be perfect, design your application from the start to allow for human correction. This pragmatic approach acknowledges AI's inherent uncertainty and allows you to deliver value sooner by leveraging human oversight to handle edge cases.

AI is not a 'set and forget' solution. An agent's effectiveness directly correlates with the amount of time humans invest in training, iteration, and providing fresh context. Performance will ebb and flow with human oversight, with the best results coming from consistent, hands-on management.

To trust an agentic AI, users need to see its work, just as a manager would with a new intern. Design patterns like "stream of thought" (showing the AI reasoning) or "planning mode" (presenting an action plan before executing) make the AI's logic legible and give users a chance to intervene, building crucial trust.

True Agentic AI isn't a single, all-powerful bot. It's an orchestrated system of multiple, specialized agents, each performing a single task (e.g., qualifying, booking, analyzing). This 'division of labor,' mirroring software engineering principles, creates a more robust, scalable, and manageable automation pipeline.

Treating AI evaluation like a final exam is a mistake. For critical enterprise systems, evaluations should be embedded at every step of an agent's workflow (e.g., after planning, before action). This is akin to unit testing in classic software development and is essential for building trustworthy, production-ready agents.

Treat advanced AI systems not as software with binary outcomes, but as a new employee with a unique persona. They can offer diverse, non-obvious insights and a different "chain of thought," sometimes finding issues even human experts miss and providing complementary perspectives.

OpenAI identifies agent evaluation as a key challenge. While they can currently grade an entire task's trace, the real difficulty lies in evaluating and optimizing the individual steps within a long, complex agentic workflow. This is a work-in-progress area critical for building reliable, production-grade agents.

The perceived limits of today's AI are not inherent to the models themselves but to our failure to build the right "agentic scaffold" around them. There's a "model capability overhang" where much more potential can be unlocked with better prompting, context engineering, and tool integrations.