LLM + Tools ≠ Agent I used to think an AI agent was simply: LLM + tools = Agent After exploring agentic system design, I'm starting to see it differently. A basic LLM application looks like: "Input → LLM → Response" An agentic system looks more like: "Goal → Reason → Act → Observe → Reason → Act →...
LLM + Tools ≠ Agent I used to think an AI agent was simply: LLM + tools = Agent After exploring agentic system design, I'm starting to see it differently.
A basic LLM application looks like: "Input → LLM → Response" An agentic system looks more like: "Goal → Reason → Act → Observe → Reason → Act →...
The real engineering challenge is designing the execution loop around it.
The page is ready to read now. The fuller skim-friendly version will appear here automatically.
LLM + Tools ≠ Agent I used to think an AI agent was simply: LLM + tools = Agent After exploring agentic system design, I'm starting to see it differently. A basic LLM application looks like: "Input → LLM → Response" An agentic system looks more like: "Goal → Reason → Act → Observe → Reason → Act →... The real engineering challenge is designing the execution loop around it.
State management Tool selection Error handling Retries and timeouts Guardrails Termination conditions Human-in-the-loop Observability and tracing So I'm beginning to think that reliable agent development is not primarily a prompt-engineering problem. It is a system-design problem with an LLM inside the system.
The real engineering challenge is designing the execution loop around it.
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.