journal

If you are in tech you can't scroll through your feed these days without hearing about "AI agents." Autonomous agents, cognitive architectures, goal-driven AI – the terms are full with the promise of intelligent systems that can perceive their environment, reason, plan complex tasks, and act independently to achieve goals. It paints a picture of digital assistants evolving into autonomous coworkers.

The vision is compelling and taps into a lot of the aspirations people have for AI. But as developers and tech enthusiasts building and using these systems today (as of early April 2025), it's worth asking: Does the reality match the hype?

My take? The term "AI Agent" is currently somewhat of a loaded marketing term. While the concept is powerful and represents an interesting way to think about how we use AI, the underlying mechanics are I think less revolutionary than many AI-hype bros would like us to believe. Fundamentally, many of today's AI agents are sophisticated systems for organizing prompts and managing tools, ultimately still revolving around API calls to Large Language Models (LLMs). Making it in my eyes more of an architecture pattern than a new class of AI.

Let's break down what's really under the hood.

What Constitutes an "AI Agent" in Practice Today?

When you strip away the futuristic gloss, most AI agent implementations consist of a few key components working together:

• The Core LLM:

  This is the engine – a powerful language model (like GPT-4, Claude 3, Gemini, Llama 3, etc.) accessed via an API. Its inherent capabilities in understanding, reasoning (to a degree), and generating text are the foundation upon which the agent operates. Crucially, its limitations (hallucinations, biases, context window size) are also the agent's limitations.

• The Prompt / Meta-Prompt:

  This is arguably where the most critical "agent" design happens. It's far more than a simple question; it's a detailed set of instructions defining the agent's overall goal, its persona or role, constraints it must operate within, the steps it should consider for reasoning (think frameworks like Chain of Thought or ReAct - Reason+Act), and, importantly, how and when to use the available tools. This is advanced prompt engineering, shaping the LLM's behavior within the agentic loop.

• The Tools:

  These are external functions, APIs, or data sources the agent is given permission to use. Tools grant the LLM capabilities it doesn't inherently possess, like accessing real-time information (web search), performing calculations, executing code, interacting with other software (sending emails, accessing databases), or retrieving specific data. The LLM doesn't run the tools; it generates the request (e.g., the search query, the code snippet, the API call parameters) for the tool to be executed.

• The Orchestration Loop/Framework:

  This is the code that ties everything together. Often built using libraries like LangChain, LlamaIndex, AutoGen, CrewAI, or even custom scripts, this layer manages the conversation flow:

  • It takes the initial user request or goal.
  • It formats the prompt, including context and available tools, and sends it to the LLM via an API call.
  • It parses the LLM's response, looking for instructions to use a specific tool with certain inputs.
  • If a tool call is requested, the orchestrator executes that tool.
  • It takes the tool's output/result.
  • It formats a new prompt for the LLM, including the original goal, conversation history, and the recent tool result, and makes another API call.
  • This loop continues until the agent (guided by the LLM's responses based on the prompt) determines the goal is complete or hits a predefined limit.

Viewed this way, an agent's operation is essentially a sequence of carefully managed API calls to an LLM. Each call includes a dynamically updated prompt containing the task history, context, and available actions (tools). The "intelligence" lies in the LLM's ability to interpret this context and decide the next step (either generating a final answer or requesting a tool call) based on its training and the instructions in the prompts. And the autonomy comes from the ability for the LLM to generate inputs to call deterministic code that someone else wrote.

Why Did the "Agent" Framing Catch On?

Despite this mechanistic view, the term "agent" isn't without merit:

• Useful Abstraction:

  It provides a higher-level way to think about building systems that need to perform multi-step tasks and interact with their environment.

• Goal Orientation:

  It shifts the focus from single-turn interactions to achieving overarching objectives.

• Encapsulating Complexity:

  While the components are distinct, their interaction can produce complex and sometimes surprising behaviors that feel more agent-like than a simple script.

• Marketing and Vision:

  Let's be honest, "AI agent" sounds more futuristic and capable than "an LLM in a loop with some tools," aligning better with the long-term vision of AI.

Where the Hype Can Be Misleading

The danger lies in letting the label obscure the current reality:

• Illusion of True Autonomy:

  Today's agents operate within tightly defined boundaries set by their prompts and available tools. Their "planning" and "reasoning" are guided interpretations derived from the LLM's pattern-matching capabilities, not conscious deliberation. They aren't truly adapting or learning independently in the wild (persistent learning is still an active research area).

• Brittleness:

  Agent performance is highly sensitive to the quality of the underlying LLM, the precision of the prompt, the reliability and design of the tools, and the robustness of the error handling in the orchestration code. A poorly phrased prompt, a tool API failure, or an unexpected LLM response can easily derail the entire process.

• Obscuring the Core:

  Attributing too much to the "agent" itself can make us forget that the core reasoning (and its flaws) still comes from the LLM. Problems like hallucination don't disappear; they can become embedded in multi-step processes.

• Unrealistic Expectations:

  The hype can lead stakeholders and users to expect near-human levels of adaptability, common sense, and reliability that current implementations generally don't deliver consistently.

Focus on What Matters: Solid Engineering, Not Just Labels

Instead of getting caught up in whether something qualifies as a "true agent," the focus should be on the engineering principles that make these systems effective:

• Masterful Prompt Engineering:

  Designing clear, robust prompts that effectively guide the LLM.

• Thoughtful Tool Design:

  Creating reliable, specific, and well-documented tools/APIs for the LLM to use.

• Robust Orchestration:

  Building resilient execution loops with proper state management, error handling, and potentially fallback mechanisms.

• Strategic LLM Selection:

  Choosing the right model for the specific task's complexity, reasoning, and tool-use needs.

• Rigorous Testing and Evaluation:

  Continuously testing the agent's performance on realistic tasks to understand its capabilities and failure points.

Conclusion: A Powerful Pattern, Not Magic (Yet)

AI agents, as they exist today, represent a useful design pattern for leveraging LLMs. They enable us to build applications that go beyond simple Q&A, tackling complex, multi-step tasks that require interaction with external systems. They are a testament to the power of LLMs combined with clever software engineering.

However, they aren't magic. They are complex systems built on specific components: the LLM, the prompts, the tools, and the orchestration code. At the end of the day, much of it still comes down to using LLM generated inputs to call deterministic code and managing the state of an ongoing conversation.