The Future of AI: Harnessing AI for E-commerce - personalized shopping agents
Explore the development of personalized shopping agents that enhance user experience by providing tailored product recommendations based on uploaded images. Leveraging Azure AI Foundry, these agents analyze images for apparel recognition and generate intelligent product recommendations, creating a seamless and intuitive shopping experience for retail customers.The Future of AI: The Model is Key, but the App is the Doorway
This post explores the real-world impact of GPT-5 beyond benchmark scores, focusing on how application design shapes user experience. It highlights early developer feedback, common integration challenges, and practical strategies for adapting apps to leverage the advanced capabilities of GPT-5 in Foundry Models. From prompt refinement to fine-tuning to new API controls, learn how to make the most of this powerful model.
All Copilot Studio Workflow Tools Suddenly Returning HTTP 403 Before Execution
Hello Copilot Studio Community, I am experiencing an authorization issue with multiple workflows connected to an agent built using the Copilot Studio new experience and new Workflows experience. These workflows worked successfully for multiple users yesterday. Today, all workflow tools connected to the agent began returning an immediate HTTP 403 authorization error. I did not intentionally change the agent, workflows, environment, or workflow permissions before the issue started. Error message: You don’t have permission to use this tool. You’re signed in, but access to this resource is blocked. Error details: Authorization - 403 Example error information: Status: Failed Error message: Flow returned HTTP 403 Error code: Http403 Inner error code: NotSpecified Tool duration: Approximately 93 milliseconds Configuration: - Copilot Studio new agent experience - Copilot Studio new Workflows experience - Agent and workflows are in the same Power Platform environment - Workflows use the "When an agent calls the workflow" trigger - Each workflow includes a "Respond to the agent" action - Workflows are saved and published - Agent is saved and published Observed behavior: The problem affects several independent workflows, including: - New-request submission - Current-user identity resolution - Approval decisions - Requester justification - Executive decisions - Fulfillment updates For every affected workflow: - The agent fills the workflow inputs correctly. - The tool call fails almost immediately. - No corresponding run appears in the workflow Activity history. - The workflow trigger is never reached. - No workflow actions execute. Because no workflow run is created, the rejection appears to occur before workflow execution, possibly within the Copilot Studio agent-to-workflow authorization or invocation layer. Troubleshooting already completed: - Confirmed that all workflows are published. - Confirmed that the agent is published. - Tested in a completely new conversation. - Removed an affected workflow tool from the agent. - Saved the agent. - Added the same published workflow back to the agent. - Reconfigured and verified the tool inputs. - Republished the agent. - Confirmed that no workflow Activity run is created. - Confirmed that the issue affects multiple workflows rather than one specific workflow. Removing and re-adding the workflow did not resolve the problem. Questions for the community: 1. Is anyone else currently experiencing HTTP 403 errors when Copilot Studio agents invoke workflows? 2. Is this a known issue or regression in the new Workflows experience? 3. Is there an environment-level or tenant-level permission that controls agent-to-workflow invocation? 4. Could a tenant policy, Conditional Access change, service principal, connection reference, or workflow-sharing configuration cause all workflow tools to fail simultaneously? 5. Where can an administrator find detailed authorization logs when the workflow never creates a run? 6. Has anyone found a workaround for this issue? Any guidance or confirmation from others experiencing the same behavior would be appreciated. I can provide screenshots, complete error details, timestamps, and additional configuration information if needed. Thank you.Automate Quota Discovery in Azure AI Foundry: A Tale of 3 APIs
Automate the discovery of Azure regions that meet your AI deployment needs using three essential APIs: Models API, Usages API, and Locations API. This process helps reduce decision fatigue and ensures compliance with enterprise-wide model deployment standards. Key learnings: Model Deployment Requirements: Understand the needs of a standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application, which involves deploying multiple models. Automation Benefits: Streamline your deployment process and ensure compliance with enterprise standards. Three Essential APIs: Models API: Query available models for a specific subscription within a chosen location. Usages API: Assess current usages and limits to infer available quotas. Locations API: Obtain a list of all available regions. A comprehensive Jupyter notebook with the implementation steps is available in the accompanying GitHub repository. This resource is invaluable for AI developers looking to streamline their deployment processes and ensure their applications meet all necessary requirementsEvaluating AI Agents: More than just LLMs
Artificial intelligence agents are undeniably one of the hottest topics at the forefront of today’s tech landscape. As more individuals and organizations increasingly rely on AI agents to simplify their daily lives—whether through automating routine tasks, assisting with decision-making, or enhancing productivity—it's clear that intelligent agents are not just a passing trend. But with great power comes greater scrutiny--or, from our perspective, it at least deserves greater scrutiny. Despite their growing popularity, one concern that we often hear about is the following: Is my agent doing the right things in the right way? Well—it can be measured from many aspects to understand the agent’s behavior—and this is why agent evaluators come into play. Why Agent Evaluation Matters Unlike traditional LLMs, which primarily generate responses to user prompts, AI agents take action. They can search the web, schedule your meetings, generate reports, send emails, or even interact with your internal systems. A great example of this evolution is GitHub Copilot’s Agent Mode in Visual Studio Code. While the standard “Ask” or “Edit” modes are powerful in their own right, Agent Mode takes things further. It can draft and refine code, iterate on its own suggestions, detect bugs, and fix them—all from a single user request. It’s not just answering questions; it’s solving problems end-to-end. This makes them inherently more powerful—and more complex to evaluate. Here’s why agent evaluation is fundamentally different from LLM evaluation: Dimension LLM Evaluation Agent Evaluation Core Function Content (text, image/video, audio, etc.) generation Action + reasoning + execution Common Metrics Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1 Score Tool usage accuracy, Task success rate, Intent resolution, Latency Risk Misinformation or hallucination Security breaches, wrong actions, data leakage Human-likeness Optional Often required (tone, memory, continuity) Ethical Concerns Content safety Moral alignment, fairness, privacy, security, execution transparency, preventing harmful actions Shared Evaluation Concerns Latency, Cost, Privacy, Security, Fairness, Moral alignment, etc. Take something as seemingly straightforward as latency. It’s a common metric across both LLMs and agents, often used as a key performance indicator. But once we enter the world of agentic systems, things get complicated—fast. For LLMs, latency is usually simple: measure the time from input to response. But for agents? A single task might involve multiple turns, delayed responses, or even real-world actions that are outside the model’s control. An agent might run a SQL query on a poorly performing cluster, triggering latency that’s caused by external systems—not the agent itself. And that’s not all. What does “done” even mean in an agentic context? If the agent is waiting on user input, has it finished? Or is it still "thinking"? These nuances make it tricky to draw clear latency boundaries. In short, agentic evaluations – even for common metrics like latency—are not just harder than evaluating an LLM. It’s an entirely different game. What to Measure in Agent Evaluation To assess an AI agent effectively, we must consider the following dimensions: Task Success Rate – Can the agent complete what it was asked to do? Tool Use Accuracy – Does the agent call the right tool with the correct parameters? Intent Resolution – Does it understand the user’s request correctly? Prompt Efficiency – Is the agent generating efficient and concise prompts for downstream models or tools? Safety and Alignment – Is the agent filtering harmful content, respecting privacy, and avoiding unsafe actions? Trust and Security – Do users feel confident relying on the agent? Does my agent have the right level of access to sensitive information and available actions? Response Latency and Reliability – How fast and consistent are the agent’s responses across contexts? Red-Teaming evaluations – These evaluation metrics focus on the potential misuse of agents and test for different types of attacks such as personal identifiable information leakage attacks and tool poisoning attacks. This is especially critical for non-chat completion agents — those that don’t merely chat but execute workflows, navigate APIs, or trigger automations. Their evaluation requires scenario simulation, observability instrumentation, and fine-grained analytics. Case Study: Evaluating a Simple AI Agent for Holiday Countdown To illustrate how to evaluate an AI agent, let’s walk through a simple use case: A simple AI agent for sending holiday cards. Agent Setup Platform: Microsoft Foundry Instruction: " You are an assistant agent designed to answer simple questions about the number of days remaining until holidays, and to generate and send holiday cards. Always use the tool to retrieve the current date and the official date of the holiday in question. Based on this information, calculate and provide the number of days left until the holiday. If the holiday is less than 90 days away, generate a personalized holiday card for the occasion. Then, send the holiday card as a gift to <Email address>." Tool: Bing Search, Azure Logic Apps (sending emails through Outlook) LLM Model: GPT-4.1 Example Request Query Response How many days left until New Year? "Today is July 23, 2025. New Year's Day is January 1, 2026. There are 162 days left until New Year." How many days left to Labor Day? "Today is July 25, 2025. Labor Day in 2025 falls on September 1, 2025. There are 38 days left until Labor Day! Since it's less than 90 days away, here's a personalized holiday card for the occasion:" Evaluation Dimensions Task Success Rate Goal: The agent should correctly identify the holiday and current date, then return the accurate number of days left. Evaluation: I tested 10 different holidays, and all were successfully returned. Task success rate = 10/10 = 100%. What’s even better? Microsoft Foundry provides a built-in LLM-based evaluator for task adherence that we can leverage directly: Tool Use Accuracy Goal: The agent should always use the tool to search for holidays and the current date—even if the LLM already knows the answer. It must call the correct tool (Bing Search) with appropriate parameters. Evaluation: Initially, the agent failed to call Bing Search when it already "knew" the date. After updating the instruction to explicitly say "use Bing Search" instead of “use tool”, tool usage became consistent-- clear instructions can improve tool-calling accuracy. Intent Resolution Goal: The agent must understand that the user wants a countdown to the next holiday mentioned, not a list of all holidays or historical data, and should understand when to send holiday card. Evaluation: The agent correctly interpreted the intent, returned countdowns, and sent holiday cards when conditions were met. Microsoft Foundry’s built-in evaluator confirmed this behavior. Prompt Efficiency Goal: The agent should generate minimal, effective prompts for downstream tools or models. Evaluation: Prompts were concise and effective, with no redundant or verbose phrasing. Safety and Alignment Goal: Ensure the agent does not expose sensitive calendar data or make assumptions about user preferences. Evaluation: For example, when asked: “How many days are left until my next birthday?” The agent doesn’t know who I am and doesn’t have access to my personal calendar, where I marked my birthday with a 🎂 emoji. So, the agent should not be able to answer this question accurately — and if it does, then you should be concerned. Trust and Security Goal: The agent should only access public holiday data and not require sensitive permissions. Evaluation: The agent did not request or require any sensitive permissions—this is a positive indicator of secure design. Response Latency and Reliability Goal: The agent should respond quickly and consistently across different times and locations. Evaluation: Average response time was 1.8 seconds, which is acceptable. The agent returned consistent results across 10 repeated queries. Red-Teaming Evaluations Goal: Test the agent for vulnerabilities such as: * PII Leakage: Does it accidentally reveal user-specific calendar data? * Tool Poisoning: Can it be tricked into calling a malicious or irrelevant tool? Evaluation: These risks are not relevant for this simple agent, as it only accesses public data and uses a single trusted tool. Even for a simple assistant agent that answers holiday countdown questions and sends holiday cards, its performance can and should be measured across multiple dimensions, especially since it can call tools on behalf of the user. These metrics can then be used to guide future improvements to the agent – at least for our simple holiday countdown agent, we should replace the ambiguous term “tool” with the specific term “Bing Search” to improve the accuracy and reliability of tool invocation. Key Learnings from Agent Evaluation As I continue to run evaluations on the AI agents we build, several valuable insights have emerged from real-world usage. Here are some lessons I learned: Tool Overuse: Some agents tend to over-invoke tools, which increases latency and can confuse users. Through prompt optimization, we reduced unnecessary tool calls significantly, improving responsiveness and clarity. Ambiguous User Intents: What often appears as a “bad” response is frequently caused by vague or overloaded user instructions. Incorporating intent clarification steps significantly improved user satisfaction and agent performance. Trust and Transparency: Even highly accurate agents can lose user trust if their reasoning isn’t transparent. Simple changes—like verbalizing decision logic or asking for confirmation—led to noticeable improvements in user retention. Balancing Safety and Utility: Overly strict content filters can suppress helpful outputs. We found that carefully tuning safety mechanisms is essential to maintain both protection and functionality. How Microsoft Foundry Helps Microsoft Foundry provide a robust suite of tools to support both LLM and agent evaluation: General purpose evaluators for generative AI - Microsoft Foundry | Microsoft Learn By embedding evaluation into the agent development lifecycle, we move from reactive debugging to proactive quality control.The Future of AI: Harnessing AI agents for Customer Engagements
Discover how AI-powered agents are revolutionizing customer engagement—enhancing real-time support, automating workflows, and empowering human professionals with intelligent orchestration. Explore the future of AI-driven service, including Customer Assist created with Azure AI Foundry.Start your Trustworthy AI Development with Safety Leaderboards in Azure AI Foundry
Selecting the right model for your AI application is more than a technical decision—it’s a foundational step in ensuring trust, compliance, and governance in AI. Today, we are excited to announce the public preview of safety leaderboards within Foundry model leaderboards, helping customers incorporate model safety as a first-class criterion alongside quality, cost, and throughput. This feature introduces three key components to support responsible AI development: A dedicated safety leaderboard highlighting the safest models; A quality–safety trade-off chart to balance performance and risk; Five new scenario-specific leaderboards supporting diverse responsible AI scenarios. Prioritize safety with the new leaderboard The safety leaderboard ranks the top models based on their robustness against generating harmful content. This is especially valuable in regulated or high-risk domains—such as healthcare, education, or financial services—where model outputs must meet high safety standards. To ensure benchmark rigor and relevance, we apply a structured filtering and validation process to select benchmarks. A benchmark qualifies for onboarding if it addresses high-priority risks. For safety and responsible AI leaderboards, we look at different benchmarks that can be considered reliable enough to provide some signals on the targeted areas of interest as they relate to safety. Our current safety leaderboard uses the HarmBench benchmark which includes prompts to illicit harmful behaviors from models. The benchmark covers 7 semantic categories of behaviors: Cybercrime & Unauthorized Intrusion Chemical & Biological Weapons/Drugs Copyright Violations Misinformation & Disinformation Harassment & Bullying Illegal Activities General Harm These 7 categories are organized into three broader functional groupings: Standard Harmful Behaviors Contextual Harmful Behaviors Copyright Violations Each grouping is featured in a separate responsible AI scenario leaderboard. We use the prompts evaluators from HarmBench to calculate Attack Success Rate (ASR) and aggregate them across the functional groupings to proxy model safety. Lower ASR values means that a model is more robust against attacks to illicit harmful content. We understand and acknowledge that model safety is a complex topic and has several dimensions. No single current open-source benchmark can test or represent the full spectrum of model safety in different scenarios. Additionally, most of these benchmarks suffer from saturation, or misalignment between benchmark design and the risk definition, can lack clear documentation on how the target risks are conceptualized and operationalized, making it difficult to assess whether the benchmark accurately captures the nuances of the risks. This can lead to either overestimating or underestimating model performance in real-world safety scenarios. While HarmBench dataset covers a limited set of harmful topics, it can still provide a high-level understanding of safety trends. Navigate trade-offs with the quality-safety chart Model selection often involves compromise across multiple criteria. Our new quality–safety trade-off chart helps you make informed decisions by comparing models based on their performance in safety and quality. You can: Identify the safest model measured by Attack Success Rate (lower is better) at a given level of quality performance; Or choose the highest-performing model in quality (higher is better) that still meets a defined safety threshold. Together with the quality-cost trade-off chart, you would be able to find the best trade-off between quality, safety, and cost in selecting a model: Scenario-based responsible AI leaderboards To support customers' diverse responsible AI scenarios, we have added 5 new leaderboards to rank the top models in safety and broader responsibility AI scenarios. Each leaderboard is powered by industry-standard public benchmarks covering: Model robustness against harmful behaviors using HarmBench in 3 scenarios, targeting standard harmful behaviors, contextually harmful behaviors, and copyright violations: Consistent with the safety leaderboard, lower ASR scores for a model mean better robustness against generating harmful content. Model ability to detect toxic content using the Toxigen benchmark: This benchmark targets adversarial and implicit hate speech detection. It contains implicitly toxic and benign sentences mentioning 13 minority groups. Higher accuracy based on F1-score for a model means its better ability to detect toxic content. Model knowledge of sensitive domains including cybersecurity, biosecurity, and chemical security, using the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy benchmark (WMDP): A higher accuracy score for a model denotes more knowledge of dangerous capabilities. These scenario leaderboards allow developers, compliance teams, and AI governance stakeholders to align model selection with organizational risk tolerance and regulatory expectations. Building Trustworthy AI Starts with the Right Tools With safety leaderboards now available in public preview, Foundry model leaderboards offer a unified, transparent, and data-driven foundation for selecting models that align with your safety requirements. This addition empowers teams to move from ad hoc evaluation to principled model selection—anchored in industry-standard benchmarks and responsible AI practices. To learn more, explore the methodology documentation and start building AI solutions you—and your stakeholders—can trust.
Ignite 2024: Streamlining AI Development with an Enhanced User Interface, Accessibility, and Learning Experiences in Azure AI Foundry portal
Announcing Azure AI Foundry, a unified platform that simplifies AI development and management. The platform portal (formerly Azure AI Studio) features a revamped user interface, enhanced model catalog, new management center, improved accessibility and learning, making it easier than ever for Developers and IT Admins to design, customize, and manage AI apps and agents efficiently.Generally Available: Evaluations, Monitoring, and Tracing in Microsoft Foundry
If you've shipped an AI agent to production, you've likely run into the same uncomfortable realization: the hard part isn't getting the agent to work - it's keeping it working. Models get updated, prompts get tweaked, retrieval pipelines drift, and user traffic surfaces edge cases that never appeared in your eval suite. Quality isn't something you establish once. It's something you have to continuously measure. Today, we're making that continuous measurement a first-class operational capability. Evaluations, Monitoring, and Tracing in Microsoft Foundry are now generally available through Foundry Control Plane. These aren't standalone tools bolted onto the side of the platform - they're deeply integrated with Azure Monitor, which means AI agent observability now lives in the same operational plane as the rest of your infrastructure. The Problem With Point-in-Time Evaluation Most evaluation workflows are designed around a pre-deployment gate. You build a test dataset, run your evals, review the scores, and ship. That approach has real value - but it has a hard ceiling. In production, agent behavior is a function of many things that change independently of your code: Foundation model updates ship continuously and can shift output style, reasoning patterns, and edge case handling in ways that don't always surface on your benchmark set. Prompt changes can have nonlinear effects downstream, especially in multi-step agentic flows. Retrieval pipeline drift changes what context your agent actually sees at inference time. A document index fresh last month may have stale or subtly different content today. Real-world traffic distribution is never exactly what you sampled for your test set. Production surfaces long-tail inputs that feel obvious in hindsight but were invisible during development. The implication is straightforward: evaluation has to be continuous, not episodic. You need quality signals at development time, at every CI/CD commit, and continuously against live production traffic - all using the same evaluator definitions so results are comparable across environments. That's the core design principle behind Foundry Observability. Continuous Evaluation Across the Full AI Lifecycle Built-In Evaluators Foundry's built-in evaluators cover the most critical quality and safety dimensions for production agent systems: Coherence and Relevance measure whether responses are internally consistent and on-topic relative to the input. These are table-stakes signals for any conversational or task-completion agent. Groundedness is particularly important for RAG-based architectures. It measures whether the model's output is actually supported by the retrieved context - as opposed to plausible-sounding content the model generated from its parametric memory. Groundedness failures are a leading indicator of hallucination risk in production, and they're often invisible to human reviewers at scale. Retrieval Quality evaluates the retrieval step independently from generation. Groundedness failures can originate in two places: the model may be ignoring good context, or the retrieval pipeline may not be surfacing relevant context in the first place. Splitting these signals makes it much easier to pinpoint root cause. Safety and Policy Alignment evaluates whether outputs meet your deployment's policy requirements - content safety, topic restrictions, response format compliance, and similar constraints. These evaluators are designed to run at every stage of the AI lifecycle: Local development - run evals inline as you iterate on prompts, retrieval config, or orchestration logic CI/CD pipelines - gate every commit against your quality baselines; catch regressions before they reach production Production traffic monitoring - continuously evaluate sampled live traffic and surface trends over time Because the evaluators are identical across all three contexts, a score in CI means the same thing as a score in production monitoring. See the Practical Guide to Evaluations and the Built-in Evaluators Reference for a deeper walkthrough. Custom Evaluators - Encoding Your Own Definition of Quality Built-in evaluators cover common signals well, but production agents often need to satisfy criteria specific to a domain, regulatory environment, or internal standard. Foundry supports two types of custom evaluators (currently in public preview): LLM-as-a-Judge evaluators let you configure a prompt and grading rubric, then use a language model to apply that rubric to your agent's outputs. This is the right approach for quality dimensions that require reasoning or contextual judgment - whether a response appropriately acknowledges uncertainty, whether a customer-facing message matches your brand tone, or whether a clinical summary meets documentation standards. You write a judge prompt with a scoring scale (e.g., 1–5 with criteria for each level) that evaluates a given {input} / {response} pair. Foundry runs this at scale and aggregates scores into your dashboards alongside built-in results. Code-based evaluators are Python functions that implement any evaluation logic you can express programmatically - regex matching, schema validation, business rule checks, compliance assertions, or calls to external systems. If your organization has documented policies about what a valid agent response looks like, you can encode those policies directly into your evaluation pipeline. Custom and built-in evaluators compose naturally - running against the same traffic, producing results in the same schema, feeding into the same dashboards and alert rules. Monitoring and Alerting - AI Quality as an Operational Signal All observability data produced by Foundry - evaluation results, traces, latency, token usage, and quality metrics - is published directly to Azure Monitor. This is where the integration pays off for teams already on Azure. What this enables that siloed AI monitoring tools can't: Cross-stack correlation. When your groundedness score drops, is it a model update, a retrieval pipeline issue, or an infrastructure problem affecting latency? With AI quality signals and infrastructure telemetry in the same Azure Monitor Application Insights workspace, you can answer that in minutes rather than hours of manual correlation across disconnected systems. Unified alerting. Configure Azure Monitor alert rules on any evaluation metric - trigger a PagerDuty incident when groundedness drops below threshold, send a Teams notification when safety violations spike, or create automated runbook responses when retrieval quality degrades. These are the same alert mechanisms your SRE team already uses. Enterprise governance by default. Azure Monitor's RBAC, retention policies, diagnostic settings, and audit logging apply automatically to all AI observability data. You inherit the governance framework your organization has already built and approved. Grafana and existing dashboards. If your team uses Azure Managed Grafana, evaluation metrics can flow into existing dashboards alongside your other operational metrics - a single pane of glass for application health, infrastructure performance, and AI agent quality. The Agent Monitoring Dashboard in the Foundry portal provides an AI-native view out of the box - evaluation metric trends, safety threshold status, quality score distributions, and latency breakdowns. Everything in that dashboard is backed by Azure Monitor data, so SRE teams can always drill deeper. End-to-End Tracing: From Quality Signal to Root Cause A groundedness score tells you something is wrong. A trace tells you exactly where the failure occurred and what the agent actually did. Foundry provides OpenTelemetry-based distributed tracing that follows each request through your entire agent system: model calls, tool invocations, retrieval steps, orchestration logic, and cross-agent handoffs. Traces capture the full execution path - inputs, outputs, latency at each step, tool call parameters and responses, and token usage. The key design decision: evaluation results are linked directly to traces. When you see a low groundedness score in your monitoring dashboard, you navigate directly to the specific trace that produced it - no manual timestamp correlation, no separate trace ID lookup. The connection is made automatically. Foundry auto-collects traces across the frameworks your agents are likely already built on: Microsoft Agent Framework Semantic Kernel LangChain and LangGraph OpenAI Agents SDK For custom or less common orchestration frameworks, the Azure Monitor OpenTelemetry Distro provides an instrumentation path. Microsoft is also contributing upstream to the OpenTelemetry project - working with Cisco Outshift, we've contributed semantic conventions for multi-agent trace correlation, standardizing how agent identity, task context, and cross-agent handoffs are represented in OTel spans. Note: Tracing is currently in public preview, with GA shipping by end of March. Prompt Optimizer (Public Preview) One persistent friction point in agent development is the iteration loop between writing prompts and measuring their effect. You make a change, run your evals, look at the delta, try to infer what about the change mattered, and repeat. Prompt Optimizer tightens this loop. It analyzes your existing prompt and applies structured prompt engineering techniques - clarifying ambiguous instructions, improving formatting for model comprehension, restructuring few-shot examples, making implicit constraints explicit - with paragraph-level explanations for every change it makes. The transparency is deliberate. Rather than producing a black-box "optimized" prompt, it shows you exactly what it changed and why. You can add constraints, trigger another optimization pass, and iterate until satisfied. When you're done, apply it with one click. The value compounds alongside continuous evaluation: run your eval suite against the current prompt, optimize, run evals again, see the measured improvement. That feedback loop - optimize, measure, optimize - is the closest thing to a systematic approach to prompt engineering that currently exists. What Makes our Approach to Observability Different There are other evaluation and observability tools in the AI ecosystem. The differentiation in Foundry's approach comes down to specific architectural choices: Unified lifecycle coverage, not just pre-deployment testing. Most existing evaluation tools are designed for offline, pre-deployment use. Foundry's evaluators run in the same form at development time, in CI/CD, and against live production traffic. Your quality metrics are actually comparable across the lifecycle - you can tell whether production quality matches what you saw in testing, rather than operating two separate measurement systems that can't be compared. No separate observability silo. Publishing all observability data to Azure Monitor means you don't operate a separate system for AI quality alongside your existing infrastructure monitoring. AI incidents route through your existing on-call rotations. AI quality data is subject to the same retention and compliance controls as the rest of your telemetry. Framework-agnostic tracing. Auto-instrumentation across Semantic Kernel, LangChain, LangGraph, and the OpenAI Agents SDK means you're not locked into a specific orchestration framework. The OpenTelemetry foundation means trace data is portable to any compatible backend, protecting your investment as the tooling landscape evolves. Composable evaluators. Built-in and custom evaluators run in the same pipeline, against the same traffic, producing results in the same schema, feeding into the same dashboards and alert rules. You don't choose between generic coverage and domain-specific precision - you get both. Evaluation linked to traces. Most systems treat evaluation and tracing as separate concerns. Foundry treats them as two views of the same event - closing the loop between detecting a quality problem and diagnosing it. Getting Started If you're building agents on Microsoft Foundry, or using Semantic Kernel, LangChain, LangGraph, or the OpenAI Agents SDK and want to add production observability, the entry point is Foundry Control Plane. Try it You'll need a Foundry project with an agent and an Azure OpenAI deployment. Enable observability by navigating to Foundry Control Plane and connecting your Azure Monitor workspace. Then walk through the Practical Guide to Evaluations, explore the Built-in Evaluators Reference, and set up end-to-end tracing for your agents.The Future of AI: Evaluating and optimizing custom RAG agents using Azure AI Foundry
This blog post explores best practices for evaluating and optimizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) agents using Azure AI Foundry. It introduces the RAG triad metrics—Retrieval, Groundedness, and Relevance—and demonstrates how to apply them using Azure AI Search and agentic retrieval for custom agents. Readers will learn how to fine-tune search parameters, use end-to-end evaluation metrics and golden retrieval metrics like XDCG and Max Relevance, and leverage Azure AI Foundry tools to build trustworthy, high-performing AI agents.
