In the context compression approach, why aren't the agents labeled as subagents instead? The compressed context is basically a "subtask".
This is my main issue with all these agentic frameworks - they always conviniently forget that there is nothing "individual" about the thing they label "an agent" and draw a box around.
Such "on demand" agents, spawned directly from previos LLM output, are never in any way substantially different from dynamic context compression/filtering.
I think the only sensible framework is to think in terms of tools, with clear interfaces, and a single "agent" (single linear interaction chain) using those tools towards a goal. Such tools could be LLM-based or not. Forcing a distinction between a "function tool" and an "agent that does somethng" doesn't make sense.
This is my main issue with all these agentic frameworks - they always conviniently forget that there is nothing "individual" about the thing they label "an agent" and draw a box around.
Such "on demand" agents, spawned directly from previos LLM output, are never in any way substantially different from dynamic context compression/filtering.
I think the only sensible framework is to think in terms of tools, with clear interfaces, and a single "agent" (single linear interaction chain) using those tools towards a goal. Such tools could be LLM-based or not. Forcing a distinction between a "function tool" and an "agent that does somethng" doesn't make sense.