OpenAI Agents SDK Handoffs Tutorial for Smarter AI Collaboration
In the video below James Briggs guides you through the core mechanics of handoffs, their advantages, and the trade-offs they introduce. You'll explore how to implement them effectively, debug issues, and optimize performance to create a system that's not just faster but smarter. Whether you're building a customer support chatbot or a real-time data processing app, you'll discover actionable strategies to tailor handoffs to your unique needs. By the end, you'll have the tools to transform your multi-agent workflows into a streamlined, efficient powerhouse. After all, the future of AI isn't just about what agents can do—it's about how intelligently they collaborate. Understanding Agent Handoffs Orchestrator-Sub-Agent Pattern vs. Handoffs
When managing multi-agent workflows, two primary approaches are commonly used: the orchestrator-sub-agent pattern and handoffs. Each method has distinct advantages and trade-offs, making them suitable for different scenarios.
The orchestrator-sub-agent pattern relies on a central orchestrator to oversee workflows. The orchestrator routes tasks to sub-agents and consolidates their responses before delivering them to the user. This approach ensures centralized control and allows for parallel processing of tasks. However, it introduces additional latency and increases token usage due to the intermediary routing steps.
Handoffs, in contrast, allow sub-agents to bypass the orchestrator and communicate directly with users. This eliminates intermediary steps, resulting in reduced latency and token consumption. However, this approach requires sub-agents to independently manage a broader system context, which can add complexity to their design and operation. Additionally, handoffs are currently limited to OpenAI's language models, which may restrict flexibility in certain integrations. Advantages and Trade-offs
Choosing between the orchestrator-sub-agent pattern and handoffs depends on the specific requirements of your workflow. Each approach offers unique benefits and limitations: Orchestrator-Sub-Agent Pattern: Provides centralized control, making sure consistency across workflows. Supports parallel processing by allowing multiple sub-agents to handle tasks simultaneously. Increases latency and token usage due to the additional routing steps involved.
Handoffs: Minimizes latency and token usage by allowing direct interaction between sub-agents and users. Requires sub-agents to manage more system context independently, increasing complexity. Limited to OpenAI's language models, which may restrict broader integrations with other systems.
Understanding these trade-offs is essential for selecting the most effective approach for your use case. In some scenarios, a hybrid model combining both methods may provide the best balance of efficiency and control. OpenAI Agents SDK Guide 2025
Watch this video on YouTube.
Uncover more insights about OpenAI Agents SDK in previous articles we have written. How to Implement Handoffs
Implementing handoffs effectively requires careful planning and configuration. Follow these steps to set up handoffs within the OpenAI Agents SDK: Define Sub-Agents: Assign specific tasks to sub-agents, such as retrieving internal documents, performing web searches, or executing code. Clearly define their roles to ensure smooth operation.
Assign specific tasks to sub-agents, such as retrieving internal documents, performing web searches, or executing code. Clearly define their roles to ensure smooth operation. Initialize the Orchestrator: Set up the orchestrator to manage workflows and enable handoffs where appropriate. This ensures a seamless transition between orchestrated tasks and direct sub-agent interactions.
Set up the orchestrator to manage workflows and enable handoffs where appropriate. This ensures a seamless transition between orchestrated tasks and direct sub-agent interactions. Customize Prompts: Use OpenAI's recommended prompt prefixes to provide sub-agents with the necessary context for their tasks. Tailored prompts improve the quality and relevance of responses.
Use OpenAI's recommended prompt prefixes to provide sub-agents with the necessary context for their tasks. Tailored prompts improve the quality and relevance of responses. Configure Tools: Define the tools and handoff descriptions required for sub-agents to interact effectively with users. This step ensures that sub-agents have access to the resources they need.
Properly implementing these steps will help you use the full potential of handoffs, improving system efficiency and user experience. Debugging and Development Tools
The OpenAI Agents SDK includes robust tools to monitor, debug, and optimize handoffs. These tools are essential for making sure smooth operation and identifying potential issues: On Handoff Callback: Logs handoff events, providing visibility into agent interactions. This feature is invaluable for debugging and understanding how sub-agents handle tasks.
Logs handoff events, providing visibility into agent interactions. This feature is invaluable for debugging and understanding how sub-agents handle tasks. Input Type Structuring: Structures data passed during handoffs, making sure consistency and control over the inputs provided to sub-agents. This reduces errors and improves reliability.
Structures data passed during handoffs, making sure consistency and control over the inputs provided to sub-agents. This reduces errors and improves reliability. Input Filtering: Filters tool call messages to refine the context provided to sub-agents. This enhances their performance by making sure they receive only relevant information.
These tools enable iterative development and fine-tuning, allowing you to optimize handoff performance over time. Optimizing Performance
Handoffs are particularly effective in reducing latency compared to the orchestrator-sub-agent pattern. To maximize their performance, consider the following strategies: Use tracing tools within the SDK to identify bottlenecks and streamline workflows. This helps pinpoint areas where efficiency can be improved.
Incorporate asynchronous code to handle API-heavy applications more efficiently. This approach reduces wait times and improves overall responsiveness.
Apply prompt engineering techniques to enhance the quality and relevance of sub-agent responses. Well-crafted prompts ensure that sub-agents perform their tasks effectively.
By implementing these strategies, you can fully realize the benefits of handoffs, creating a faster and more efficient system. Use Cases and Practical Considerations
Handoffs are particularly well-suited for workflows that prioritize speed and simplicity. Common use cases include: Customer support chatbots that require real-time responses to user queries.
Applications involving real-time data retrieval or processing, where low latency is critical.
In contrast, the orchestrator-sub-agent pattern is ideal for complex workflows that demand centralized control and coordination. For example, workflows involving multiple interdependent tasks may benefit from the orchestrator's ability to manage parallel processing and consolidate responses.
In some cases, a hybrid approach that combines handoffs and the orchestrator pattern may offer the best results. This allows you to use the strengths of both methods, tailoring the system to meet specific requirements.
To make the most of handoffs, consider these practical tips: Adopt asynchronous workflows to handle multiple API calls efficiently, reducing wait times and improving responsiveness.
Tailor prompts and handoff descriptions to align with the specific needs of your use case. Customized prompts improve sub-agent performance.
Use tracing and debugging tools to identify areas for improvement and optimize performance iteratively.
By carefully considering these factors, you can design a system that balances efficiency, flexibility, and control, meeting the demands of your workflow effectively.
Media Credit: James Briggs Filed Under: AI, Guides
Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals
Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Geeky Gadgets
34 minutes ago
- Geeky Gadgets
iOS 26 Beta 5: Release Date & What to Expect!
Apple's iOS 26 Beta program is advancing steadily, with Beta 5 set to launch on August 4, 2025. Building on the enhancements introduced in Beta 4, this upcoming release is expected to refine the user experience further as Apple prepares for the official iOS 26 launch in mid-September. Below is a detailed look at the key updates, improvements, and what lies ahead for iOS 26 in a new video from iReviews. Watch this video on YouTube. Key Highlights from iOS 26 Beta 4 iOS 26 Beta 4 introduced a range of updates aimed at enhancing performance, usability, and functionality. These changes reflect Apple's ongoing commitment to delivering a seamless and efficient operating system. Key improvements include: Performance and Stability: Faster app launches and reduced system crashes, making sure a smoother and more reliable experience. Faster app launches and reduced system crashes, making sure a smoother and more reliable experience. Battery Life: Improved energy efficiency, allowing devices to last longer on a single charge, even during intensive use. Improved energy efficiency, allowing devices to last longer on a single charge, even during intensive use. Safari Updates: Haptic feedback when initiating downloads, providing a tactile response to user actions for better interaction. Haptic feedback when initiating downloads, providing a tactile response to user actions for better interaction. Battery Usage Tracking: A new feature that mirrors iPhone activity, offering detailed insights into energy consumption patterns. A new feature that mirrors iPhone activity, offering detailed insights into energy consumption patterns. FaceTime and CarPlay Integration: Hands-free video calls via FaceTime on CarPlay, enhancing convenience and safety while driving. Hands-free video calls via FaceTime on CarPlay, enhancing convenience and safety while driving. Customizable CarPlay Dashboard: The ability to remove Siri suggestions for a cleaner and more personalized interface. These updates demonstrate Apple's focus on integrating hardware and software to create a cohesive and user-friendly ecosystem. Podcast App Enhancements The Podcast app received significant updates in Beta 4, offering users greater control and customization over their listening experience. These enhancements include: Custom Playback Settings: The ability to tailor playback preferences for individual podcasts, making sure an optimized experience for each show. The ability to tailor playback preferences for individual podcasts, making sure an optimized experience for each show. Audio Enhancements: Tools for adjustable playback speeds and dialogue enhancement, improving clarity and comprehension for diverse listening needs. These updates make the Podcast app more versatile, catering to a wide range of user preferences and listening habits. What to Expect in iOS 26 Beta 5 Scheduled for release on August 4, iOS 26 Beta 5 is expected to build upon the foundation laid by Beta 4. Anticipated updates include: Liquid Glass Design Refinements: Further visual enhancements to the interface, making it more polished and visually appealing. Further visual enhancements to the interface, making it more polished and visually appealing. Minor Feature Updates: Additional tweaks and adjustments aimed at optimizing the overall user experience. As Apple approaches the final stages of development, there is speculation that the company may shift to a weekly beta release schedule after Beta 5. This accelerated timeline would allow for more rapid testing and refinement ahead of the official launch. Performance Metrics and iPhone 15 Integration The iOS 26 Beta series has shown impressive performance, particularly when paired with Apple's upcoming iPhone 15 Pro Max. Benchmarks from Geekbench 6 highlight notable gains in processing power and efficiency, showcasing the synergy between iOS 26 and Apple's latest hardware. These improvements are expected to enhance: Multitasking capabilities allow users to switch between apps more seamlessly. Gaming performance, with smoother graphics and faster load times. Overall device responsiveness, making sure a more fluid and intuitive user experience. This integration underscores Apple's focus on delivering a cohesive experience across its devices, using both hardware and software advancements to maximize performance. Release Timeline and Final Launch Apple's iOS 26 release schedule aligns with its annual iPhone launch, making sure the operating system is optimized for the latest devices while maintaining compatibility with older models. Key dates to note include: September 8: Official announcement of the iPhone 15 lineup. Official announcement of the iPhone 15 lineup. September 12: Pre-orders for the new iPhones begin. Pre-orders for the new iPhones begin. September 15: Final release of iOS 26, coinciding with the iPhone 15 launch. Final release of iOS 26, coinciding with the iPhone 15 launch. September 19: Shipping of the new iPhones starts, with iOS 26 pre-installed. This timeline ensures that iOS 26 is ready to complement the capabilities of the iPhone 15 series while providing a polished experience for users of older devices. Looking Ahead The iOS 26 Beta program continues to deliver meaningful updates, with Beta 5 poised to bring additional refinements. From performance improvements and battery optimization to enhanced app functionality, Apple is setting a high standard for its next major operating system release. As the final launch approaches, users can anticipate a feature-rich experience designed to complement the advanced capabilities of the iPhone 15 lineup. Gain further expertise in iOS 26 Beta by checking out these recommendations. Source & Image Credit: iReviews Filed Under: Apple, Apple iPhone, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed to and what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Enough of the billionaires and their big tech. ‘Frugal tech' will build us all a better world
There's a common misconception that state-of-the-art technology has to be expensive, energy consumptive and hard to engineer. That's because we have been persuaded to believe that innovative technology is whatever bombastic billionaires claim it is, whether that's commercial spacecraft or the endless iterations of generative AI tools. As the Canadian technologist and engineer Ursula Franklin once said, fantasies of technology would have it that innovation is always 'investment-driven, shiny, lab-born, experimental, exciting'. But more often than not, in the real world, it is 'needs-driven, scrappy, on location, iterative, practical, mundane'. The real pioneering technologies of today are genuinely useful systems I like to call 'frugal tech', and they are brought to life not by eccentric billionaires but by people doing more with less. They don't impose top-down 'solutions' that seem to complicate our lives while making a few people very rich. It turns out that genuinely innovative technology really can set people free. Last month at Berlin's once hippy, now increasingly corporatised Re:publica conference, for example, I met researchers from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), who are using technologies such as software-defined radios and spectrum sensing to allow people in low-resource environments to stay connected despite limited bandwidth, power, hardware and communication infrastructure. These technologies are the basis of the local community networks that supply coverage to the 2.5 billion people globally who lack internet access. In the Niger Delta, which suffers from toxic levels of air pollution from its oil industry, APC is setting up connections and deploying low-cost sensors that monitor the environment. These play a crucial role in how locals can advise children when to stay inside and which areas to avoid playing in. This infrastructure is managed for and by the municipality, serves a pressing need and can be installed and built by the people who deploy it. Unlike, say, ChatGPT or a Blue Origin space rocket. The fact is, while generative AI is lauded as the technology of the minute, iterations such as Dall-E 3, Google Gemini and GPT are irrelevant to those who don't have enough internet bandwidth to use them. The new digital divide is the gap between the top end of the global population – who have access to these power-intensive technologies – and those at the bottom, whose internet access, or lack of, remains static. That's why some of today's most brilliant minds are working out how to manage the trade-off between internet range and bandwidth, and whether there are obstacles in the way such as mountains and foliage. The fact is that good innovation also often involves lobbying for good. So while big tech poured hundreds of millions into watering down the EU AI Act, good tech lobbies for better internet provisions for all. Policy and innovation go hand in hand, meaning that the consequences of good technology far exceed the technology itself, extending to governance and social welfare. At Re:publica's 'maker space', I fiddled around with DIY solar-powered sensors that can be built using a Raspberry Pi computer and off-the-shelf components such as humidity sensors. I lost my partner, an engineer by training, to a microscope designed by the OpenFlexure project that was made from 3D printed materials. Microscopes are crucial for diagnosing infections but can cost millions of pounds, making them entirely inaccessible for many people across the globe. This one is lightweight, costs next to nothing and is open source, meaning that anyone can reproduce the design by 3D printing parts and cobbling them together with shop-bought motors and circuit boards. A bit like a cheap Ikea wardrobe, except that all the bits you need to assemble it can be bought inexpensively from a local electronics shop. Manufacturers from Ghana and Wales to Chile and Australia are all using OpenFlexure's designs to give people everywhere access to low-source microscopy. We might think generative AI has invaded all corners of our lives, but this couldn't be further from the truth. What is actually prolific and relevant to the majority are low-cost technologies that solve day-to-day business and social problems. While most of what we consider to be 'hi-tech' is closed off behind proprietary algorithms, the open-source technologies above all require community involvement. This can be immensely empowering, and can improve public trust: it's hard (and unwise) to give yourself over to a technology that won't tell you how it works, particularly when its predefined settings allow only for meagre approaches to 'user privacy'. As I ask my students, if you could develop an AI at your own home, and programme it to reflect your values and prioritise your safety, wouldn't you trust it more? Well, the idea isn't so outlandish – it only feels impossible because big tech firms want us to think it is. What is most outstanding about frugal innovation is not just that its technologies are impressive, but that it might actually prompt systemic change by showing people that tech can be developed locally, and not just imported from Silicon Valley. When farmer Chris Conder dug her own fibreoptic cables on her property in Lancashire, she set out 'to prove that ordinary people could do it … it wasn't rocket science'. By demonstrating that fast internet could be connected with fibre-optic cable, a digger and the desire to just get on and do it, she spawned an organisation called B4RN, which promotes community fibre partnerships. Tech bros may want you to believe there is no point in making something new unless it is difficult, inaccessible and exclusionary. But technological innovation is about collaboration as much as it is about competition. For many people across the world, a product's value isn't in a sky-high valuation, or in it being impossible to take apart (as with impenetrable iPhones). Often, the smartest technologies are those that distil a problem down to its bread and butter components in order to disseminate a solution to the masses. So, while innovative individuals and communities around the world quietly get on with improving their lives and those around them, it's high time the rest of us stopped being passive recipients of technology, and started asking ourselves what kind of world we want to live in and how to create it. Must the setting for innovation be £1bn-plus buildings like Google's new London offices in King's Cross, located in nations that can afford to stomach eye-watering training costs and compute power requirements? Or might we instead be able to steer innovation from within our very communities – or households? Eleanor Drage is a senior research fellow at the University of Cambridge's Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence and co-author of the The Good Robot: Why Technology Needs Feminism
