feat: improved UX for tool calls via execute_code #6205

alexhancock · 2025-12-19T21:00:18Z

Change

Improves the UX when in code mode. Makes a new tool_graph argument the model will provide to outline the flow of execution that will occur with the code it wrote. The client then uses this to render information about what the code it wrote will do (how many tools were called, what tools were called, etc) still with an option to see the code.

Demos

Desktop:

CLI:

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR enhances the UX for the execute_code tool by adding a tool_graph parameter that describes the execution flow. This allows both the desktop UI and CLI to display user-friendly summaries of what tools will be called and their dependencies, rather than just showing raw code.

Key Changes

Added tool_graph field to execute_code tool to describe execution flow as a DAG
Desktop UI now renders a visual graph showing tool calls and their dependencies, with code available in an expandable section
CLI displays formatted output showing numbered tool calls with dependency information

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

File	Description
`ui/desktop/src/components/ToolCallWithResponse.tsx`	Added `ToolGraphNode` interface and `ToolGraphView` component to render tool execution graphs in the desktop UI
`crates/goose/src/agents/code_execution_extension.rs`	Added `ToolGraphNode` struct and `tool_graph` field to `ExecuteCodeParams`, updated tool description to instruct models to provide the graph
`crates/goose-cli/src/session/output.rs`	Added `render_execute_code_request` function to display formatted tool graph output in the CLI

Copilot · 2025-12-19T21:03:30Z

ui/desktop/src/components/ToolCallWithResponse.tsx

        return `poking around...`;

+      case 'execute_code': {
+        const toolGraph = args.tool_graph as unknown as ToolGraphNode[] | undefined;


The double cast through unknown bypasses TypeScript's type safety. Consider defining a proper type guard function or adding a runtime validation function that checks the structure matches ToolGraphNode[] before casting.

Copilot · 2025-12-19T21:03:30Z

ui/desktop/src/components/ToolCallWithResponse.tsx

-      )}
+      {(() => {
+        const toolName = toolCall.name.substring(toolCall.name.lastIndexOf('__') + 2);
+        const toolGraph = toolCall.arguments?.tool_graph as unknown as ToolGraphNode[] | undefined;


The double cast through unknown bypasses TypeScript's type safety. Consider defining a proper type guard function or adding a runtime validation function that checks the structure matches ToolGraphNode[] before casting.

Copilot · 2025-12-19T21:03:30Z

crates/goose/src/agents/code_execution_extension.rs

+                        TOOL_GRAPH: Always provide tool_graph to describe the execution flow for the UI.
+                        Each node has: tool (server/name), description (what it does), depends_on (indices of dependencies).
+                        Example for chained operations:
+                        [
+                          {"tool": "developer/shell", "description": "list files", "depends_on": []},
+                          {"tool": "developer/text_editor", "description": "read README.md", "depends_on": []},
+                          {"tool": "developer/text_editor", "description": "write output.txt", "depends_on": [0, 1]}
+                        ]


The documentation states "Always provide tool_graph" but the field is marked as optional with #[serde(default)]. This creates inconsistency between the instruction and the actual schema. Either make the field required or update the documentation to say "Provide tool_graph when possible" or similar.

Copilot · 2025-12-19T21:03:30Z

ui/desktop/src/components/ToolCallWithResponse.tsx

+      const deps =
+        node.depends_on.length > 0 ? ` (uses ${node.depends_on.map((d) => d + 1).join(', ')})` : '';


The dependency indices are displayed without validation. If a dependency index is out of bounds (>= toolGraph.length) or references a later node (>= current index), the displayed number will be misleading. Consider adding validation or at least bounds checking before displaying.

Suggested change

const deps =

node.depends_on.length > 0 ? ` (uses ${node.depends_on.map((d) => d + 1).join(', ')})` : '';

const validDeps = node.depends_on.filter(

(d) =>

Number.isInteger(d) &&

d >= 0 &&

d < toolGraph.length &&

d < index,

);

const deps =

validDeps.length > 0 ? ` (uses ${validDeps.map((d) => d + 1).join(', ')})` : '';

Copilot · 2025-12-19T21:03:31Z

crates/goose-cli/src/session/output.rs

+            .into_iter()
+            .flatten()
+            .filter_map(Value::as_u64)
+            .map(|d| (d + 1).to_string())


The dependency indices are displayed without validation. If a dependency index is out of bounds or references a later node, the displayed number will be misleading. Consider adding validation or at least bounds checking before displaying.

Suggested change

.map(|d| (d + 1).to_string())

.filter_map(|d| {

let max_index = count as u64;

let current_index = i as u64;

if d < max_index && d <= current_index {

Some((d + 1).to_string())

} else {

None

}

})

codefromthecrypt

Nice I personally like this as when auditing manually found sometimes not sure what it intends vs what it wrote

michaelneale · 2025-12-20T02:57:18Z

I like it, one suggestion, in GUI, could it say "N tools used" (don't need to add the detail around execute code as that looks a bit extra detailed)? If there is just 1 or 2, could it show it right next to it (not sure if that would be better but just another thought) but just to keep it simple, but yeah, this is great.
This is the sort of thing I was hoping for! nice one!

codefromthecrypt · 2025-12-20T06:37:27Z

Also this seems neat to add to traces at some point.. like I wonder if there would be a "code mode eval"

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Copilot · 2025-12-22T15:01:19Z

ui/desktop/src/components/ToolCallWithResponse.tsx

+            return `${toolGraph[0].description}`;
+          }
+          if (toolGraph.length === 2) {
+            return `${toolGraph[0].tool}, ${toolGraph[1].tool}`;


When displaying two tools, this shows the tool names but not their descriptions. This is inconsistent with the single-tool case (line 423) which shows the description. For two tools, consider showing descriptions instead of tool names for consistency, or show both items in a format like "description1, description2".

Suggested change

return `${toolGraph[0].tool}, ${toolGraph[1].tool}`;

const firstLabel = toolGraph[0].description || toolGraph[0].tool;

const secondLabel = toolGraph[1].description || toolGraph[1].tool;

return `${firstLabel}, ${secondLabel}`;

alexhancock · 2025-12-22T15:42:18Z

@michaelneale Good suggestions - updated and merging now!

* main: (155 commits) remove Tool Selection Strategy preview (#6250) fix(cli): correct bash syntax in terminal integration functions (#6181) fix : opening a session to view it modifies session history order in desktop (#6156) test: fix recipe and audio tests to avoid side effects (#6231) chore: Update gemini versions in test_providers.sh (#6246) feat: option to stream json - jsonl really (#6228) feat: add mcp app renderer (#6095) docs: update skills extension to support .agents/skills directories (#6199) Add YouTube short to Chrome DevTools MCP tutorial (#6244) docs: Caveats for privacy information in logs documentation (#6218) move goose issue solver to opus (#6233) feat: improved UX for tool calls via execute_code (#6205) Blog: Code Mode Doesn't Replace MCP (#6227) fix: prevent keychain requests during cargo test (#6219) test: fix test_max_turns_limit slow execution and wrong message type (#6221) Skills vs MCP blog (#6220) Add blog post: Does Your AI Agent Need a Plan? (#6209) fix(ui): enable MCP UI to send a prompt message when an element is clicked (#6207) docs: param option for recipe deeplink/open (#6206) docs: edit in place or fork session (#6203) ...

alexhancock requested review from DOsinga, codefromthecrypt, Copilot and michaelneale December 19, 2025 21:00

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of alexhancock December 19, 2025 21:00 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

alexhancock force-pushed the alexhancock/code-mode-improved-ux-tools branch from c66acc8 to c99b2e0 Compare December 19, 2025 23:14

codefromthecrypt approved these changes Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 20, 2025 16:54

alexhancock force-pushed the alexhancock/code-mode-improved-ux-tools branch from c99b2e0 to b0e8f83 Compare December 20, 2025 16:54

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of alexhancock December 20, 2025 16:54 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

alexhancock force-pushed the alexhancock/code-mode-improved-ux-tools branch from b0e8f83 to bd917b6 Compare December 22, 2025 14:08

feat: improved UX for tool calls via execute_code

78a1e1f

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 22, 2025 14:58

alexhancock force-pushed the alexhancock/code-mode-improved-ux-tools branch from bd917b6 to 78a1e1f Compare December 22, 2025 14:58

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of alexhancock December 22, 2025 14:59 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

alexhancock merged commit 7134e89 into main Dec 22, 2025
26 checks passed

alexhancock deleted the alexhancock/code-mode-improved-ux-tools branch December 22, 2025 15:42

cronus42 pushed a commit to cronus42/goose that referenced this pull request Dec 22, 2025

feat: improved UX for tool calls via execute_code (block#6205)

481553f

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

chore(release): release version 1.19.0 (minor) #6344

Merged

BrewTestBot mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

block-goose-cli 1.19.0 Homebrew/homebrew-core#261531

Merged

		const deps =
		node.depends_on.length > 0 ? ` (uses ${node.depends_on.map((d) => d + 1).join(', ')})` : '';

-      const deps =
-        node.depends_on.length > 0 ? ` (uses ${node.depends_on.map((d) => d + 1).join(', ')})` : '';
+      const validDeps = node.depends_on.filter(
+        (d) =>
+          Number.isInteger(d) &&
+          d >= 0 &&
+          d < toolGraph.length &&
+          d < index,
+      );
+      const deps =
+        validDeps.length > 0 ? ` (uses ${validDeps.map((d) => d + 1).join(', ')})` : '';

-            .map(|d| (d + 1).to_string())
+            .filter_map(|d| {
+                let max_index = count as u64;
+                let current_index = i as u64;
+                if d < max_index && d <= current_index {
+                    Some((d + 1).to_string())
+                } else {
+                    None
+                }
+            })

-            return `${toolGraph[0].tool}, ${toolGraph[1].tool}`;
+            const firstLabel = toolGraph[0].description || toolGraph[0].tool;
+            const secondLabel = toolGraph[1].description || toolGraph[1].tool;
+            return `${firstLabel}, ${secondLabel}`;

feat: improved UX for tool calls via execute_code #6205

feat: improved UX for tool calls via execute_code #6205

Uh oh!

Conversation

alexhancock commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Key Changes

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codefromthecrypt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

michaelneale commented Dec 20, 2025

Uh oh!

codefromthecrypt commented Dec 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alexhancock commented Dec 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants