Back to blogs

Optimizing Agent Reliability: Debugging Trajectories and Prompt Engineering

April 12, 2024

Optimizing Agent Reliability: Debugging Trajectories and Prompt Engineering

The vision is clear: building intelligent systems capable of complex reasoning, perhaps even emulating the distributed cognitive functions we see in biological brains. For me, that road leads through Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures, where specialized agents collaborate to solve problems. But here's the kicker: an expert that fails 30% of the time isn't an expert; it's a liability. My work, and likely yours, demands agents that are not just clever, but reliably robust.

Why Reliability Isn't Optional – It's Foundational

In a research setting, an LLM agent that "mostly works" might be impressive. In production, or as a building block for a more sophisticated, brain-inspired system, it's a non-starter. Imagine a core cognitive module that occasionally hallucinates tool calls or misinterprets an observation. The entire system's integrity crumbles.

We're not just building chatbots; we're architecting intelligent decision-makers. Like a finely tuned CPU, each agent must operate with predictable precision. My aversion to opaque, bloated frameworks stems from this very principle: I need to understand exactly why an agent makes a specific decision, and when it fails, I need surgical precision to diagnose and fix it. Abstract layers often obscure the critical interaction points that lead to intermittent failures.

This post isn't about the latest LLM model; it's about the relentless pursuit of determinism in an inherently non-deterministic environment. We'll dive into the trenches, analyzing agent "thought" processes and engineering prompts with the precision of an assembly programmer.

The Lean Agent: Raw Power, No Bloat

Before we debug, let's talk architecture. My preference is for direct API calls and minimal abstractions. Frameworks like LangChain, while convenient for rapid prototyping, often introduce an unnecessary layer of indirection, obscuring performance bottlenecks and making low-level debugging a nightmare. When every token and every interaction counts for performance and reliability, I want direct control.

Here’s a simplified conceptual TypeScript structure for an agent loop, demonstrating a preference for raw interactions:

// agent.ts
 
interface Tool {
    name: string;
    description: string;
    execute: (input: string) => Promise<string>;
}
 
interface AgentState {
    thought: string;
    action?: { tool: string; input: string };
    observation?: string;
    history: { role: 'user' | 'assistant' | 'system'; content: string }[];
}
 
class LeanAgent {
    private tools: Record<string, Tool>;
    private llmClient: any; // Raw OpenAI, Anthropic, or Agno client
    private systemPrompt: string;
 
    constructor(tools: Tool[], systemPrompt: string, llmClient: any) {
        this.tools = tools.reduce((acc, tool) => ({ ...acc, [tool.name]: tool }), {});
        this.llmClient = llmClient;
        this.systemPrompt = systemPrompt;
    }
 
    private formatToolsForPrompt(): string {
        return Object.values(this.tools)
            .map(tool => {
                let example = '';
                // Add specific few-shot examples directly in tool description for clarity
                if (tool.name === 'search') {
                    example = `Example: search("latest AI research papers")`;
                } else if (tool.name === 'calculator') {
                    example = `Example: calculator("2+2*3")`;
                }
                return `Tool: ${tool.name}(input: string) -> string\nDescription: ${tool.description}\n${example}`;
            })
            .join('\n\n');
    }
 
    private async callLLM(messages: { role: 'user' | 'assistant' | 'system'; content: string }[]): Promise<string> {
        // Direct call to LLM API (e.g., OpenAI chat completions)
        // Add robust retry logic, timeout, and error handling here
        try {
            const response = await this.llmClient.chat.completions.create({
                model: "gpt-4o", // Or your preferred fast, capable model
                messages: messages,
                temperature: 0.1, // Keep it low for reliability
                max_tokens: 512,
            });
            return response.choices[0].message.content || '';
        } catch (error) {
            console.error("LLM API error:", error);
            // Implement circuit breaker or specific fallback
            throw new Error("Failed to get LLM response");
        }
    }
 
    public async run(initialQuery: string, maxIterations: number = 5): Promise<string> {
        let state: AgentState = {
            thought: '',
            history: [{ role: 'system', content: this.systemPrompt + '\n\n' + this.formatToolsForPrompt() }],
        };
        state.history.push({ role: 'user', content: initialQuery });
 
        for (let i = 0; i < maxIterations; i++) {
            console.log(`--- Agent Iteration ${i + 1} ---`);
            const llmResponse = await this.callLLM(state.history);
 
            // This is where custom parsing comes in
            const parsedOutput = this.parseAgentOutput(llmResponse);
 
            if (parsedOutput && 'answer' in parsedOutput) {
                console.log(`FINAL ANSWER: ${parsedOutput.answer}`);
                return parsedOutput.answer;
            } else if (parsedOutput && 'tool' in parsedOutput) {
                const { tool, input } = parsedOutput;
                console.log(`Action: ${tool}, Input: ${input}`);
 
                const toolExecutor = this.tools[tool];
                if (!toolExecutor) {
                    const observation = `Error: Tool '${tool}' not found. Available tools: ${Object.keys(this.tools).join(', ')}`;
                    state.history.push({ role: 'assistant', content: llmResponse });
                    state.history.push({ role: 'user', content: `Observation: ${observation}` });
                } else {
                    try {
                        const observation = await toolExecutor.execute(input);
                        state.history.push({ role: 'assistant', content: llmResponse });
                        state.history.push({ role: 'user', content: `Observation: ${observation}` });
                    } catch (error) {
                        const observation = `Tool '${tool}' failed with error: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`;
                        state.history.push({ role: 'assistant', content: llmResponse });
                        state.history.push({ role: 'user', content: `Observation: ${observation}` });
                    }
                }
            } else {
                console.warn("LLM provided malformed or unparseable output. Retrying with explicit instruction.");
                state.history.push({ role: 'assistant', content: llmResponse });
                state.history.push({ role: 'user', content: "Your previous output was malformed. Please ensure you either use 'Action: [tool]\nAction Input: [input]' or 'FINAL ANSWER: [answer]' format. Do not use any other format." });
            }
        }
        return "Agent failed to find a final answer within the maximum iterations.";
    }
 
    // Custom output parser (implementation below)
    private parseAgentOutput(llmOutput: string): { tool: string; input: string } | { answer: string } | null {
        // ... (implementation detailed in section 5)
        return null; // Placeholder
    }
}

This structure allows for maximum visibility and control, which is essential for debugging and performance tuning. Every component, from the LLM call to tool execution and output parsing, is explicit.

Debugging the Black Box: LangSmith for Trajectory Analysis

While my primary instinct is to build everything from scratch, pragmatism dictates recognizing when an external tool offers undeniable value. For visualizing agent "thought processes," especially when dealing with the nuances of LLM interactions, LangSmith is a powerful, albeit sometimes heavy-handed, observability tool. It's not a framework I'd build my agent with, but it's a valuable lens for observing the agent's internal state transitions.

Integrating LangSmith minimally means wrapping your callLLM and tool execute methods to log their inputs, outputs, and any errors. This gives us the crucial "trace" of the agent's execution path.

// Minimal LangSmith integration for observability
import { Client, RunTree } from "langsmith";
 
// Assuming LANGCHAIN_API_KEY and LANGCHAIN_TRACING_V2 are set
const langsmithClient = new Client();
 
async function wrapLLMCallWithTrace(
    llmClient: any,
    messages: { role: 'user' | 'assistant' | 'system'; content: string }[],
    parentRun?: RunTree
): Promise<{ output: string; run: RunTree }> {
    const run = new RunTree({
        name: "LLM_Call",
        run_type: "llm",
        inputs: { messages },
        parent_run: parentRun,
        // tags: ["agent-trace"] // Add custom tags for filtering
    });
    try {
        await run.post();
        const response = await llmClient.chat.completions.create({ /* ... */ });
        const output = response.choices[0].message.content || '';
        run.outputs = { output };
        await run.end();
        return { output, run };
    } catch (error) {
        run.error = String(error);
        await run.end();
        throw error;
    }
}
 
// In the Agent's run method:
// let currentRun: RunTree | undefined; // Pass this through iterations
// ...
// const { output: llmResponse, run: llmRun } = await wrapLLMCallWithTrace(this.llmClient, state.history, currentRun);
// currentRun = llmRun; // Update current run for next step

What LangSmith reveals:

  • Deviation from Instruction: Does the LLM output a thought-action sequence different from your prompt's explicit instructions?
  • Tool Misuse: Is the agent calling the wrong tool, or providing malformed arguments to the correct one? This often points to ambiguous tool descriptions or insufficient few-shot examples.
  • Observation Misinterpretation: Does the agent receive an observation but then proceed as if it saw something else, leading to an incorrect subsequent action?
  • Infinite Loops: Common in agents, where they get stuck in repetitive actions or thoughts without making progress.
  • Hallucinated Tools: The LLM invents a tool that doesn't exist, a direct failure of constraint enforcement.

Each of these failures is a critical debug point. LangSmith allows us to see the sequence of prompts, LLM responses, and tool observations, creating a comprehensive "trajectory" of the agent's decision-making process.

Engineering Reliability: The Prompt is the Program

Once LangSmith highlights a failure, the fix almost always lies in the prompt. For LLM agents, the prompt isn't just instructions; it is the program. Every token matters.

4.1. The System Prompt: Your Agent's OS Manual

This is the foundation. It establishes the agent's identity, its goals, and critically, its output format constraints.

const systemPrompt = `
You are a highly efficient and accurate problem-solving agent.
Your goal is to precisely answer the user's query by breaking it down into steps, using available tools, and providing a concise FINAL ANSWER.
 
Strictly follow this thought-action-observation loop:
1.  **Thought**: You must always first reflect on the current state, what you need to do next, and which tool to use.
2.  **Action**: If you need to use a tool, output 'Action: [tool_name]\nAction Input: [tool_input]'.
3.  **Observation**: This will be provided by the system after your action.
4.  **FINAL ANSWER**: Once you have fully solved the user's request and have the complete answer, output 'FINAL ANSWER: [your_answer]'.
 
Do NOT elaborate or provide conversational text outside of your 'Thought' or 'FINAL ANSWER'.
You MUST ONLY use the tools provided. DO NOT hallucinate tool names or arguments.
If you get stuck or receive an error, try to recover or state a FINAL ANSWER if appropriate.
`;

Key takeaways for prompt engineering:

  • Explicit Format Enforcement: "You MUST ONLY output 'Action: [tool_name]\nAction Input: [tool_input]' or 'FINAL ANSWER: [your_answer]'." This is non-negotiable.
  • Role and Goal Clarity: "You are a highly efficient and accurate problem-solving agent."
  • Constraint Repetition: Reinforce critical constraints multiple times. LLMs often "forget" instructions mid-response.
  • Temperature: Keep it low (e.g., temperature: 0.1 or 0) for deterministic behavior, sacrificing creativity for reliability.

4.2. Tool Definitions: Precise Manuals with Few-Shot Examples

Ambiguous tool descriptions are a prime source of agent failure. Each tool must have a crystal-clear purpose, argument structure, and, crucially, few-shot examples embedded directly in the prompt. These examples serve as concrete demonstrations of expected usage.

// Inside formatToolsForPrompt() method or similar utility
const tools: Tool[] = [
    {
        name: 'search',
        description: 'Searches the web for factual information. Use this when you need current data or to verify facts.',
        execute: async (query: string) => `Simulated web search for "${query}" resulted in "LLMs are complex neural networks."`,
    },
    {
        name: 'calculator',
        description: 'Evaluates mathematical expressions. Input must be a valid arithmetic string.',
        execute: async (expression: string) => `Simulated calculation of "${expression}" resulted in "10"`,
    },
    // ... more tools
];
 
// Example of how they render in the prompt:
// Tool: search(input: string) -> string
// Description: Searches the web for factual information. Use this when you need current data or to verify facts.
// Example: search("latest AI research papers")
//
// Tool: calculator(input: string) -> string
// Description: Evaluates mathematical expressions. Input must be a valid arithmetic string.
// Example: calculator("2+2*3")

The "Example:" line is incredibly powerful. It directly shows the LLM the desired invocation pattern, reducing ambiguity far more effectively than descriptive text alone.

Robust Output Parsing: Guarding Against LLM Creativity

The LLM is a language model, not a JSON serializer. It will, at times, deviate from your meticulously crafted output format. A single missing newline or an extra word can crash your agent. This is where a custom, resilient output parser becomes indispensable. Ditch generic framework parsers; write one specific to your agent's expected output.

// Inside the LeanAgent class
private parseAgentOutput(llmOutput: string): { tool: string; input: string } | { answer: string } | null {
    llmOutput = llmOutput.trim(); // Always trim whitespace
 
    // Attempt to parse Final Answer first
    const finalAnswerMatch = llmOutput.match(/^FINAL ANSWER:\s*(.*)/is);
    if (finalAnswerMatch) {
        return { answer: finalAnswerMatch[1].trim() };
    }
 
    // Attempt to parse Action
    // Regex is designed to be robust against slight variations in newlines/spacing
    const actionMatch = llmOutput.match(/Action:\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)\s*\nAction Input:\s*(.*)/is);
    if (actionMatch) {
        return {
            tool: actionMatch[1].trim(),
            input: actionMatch[2].trim(),
        };
    }
 
    // Fallback: If neither matches, try to salvage
    console.warn("LLM output malformed, attempting heuristic recovery:", llmOutput);
 
    // Heuristic 1: If it starts with "Thought:" and then has "Action:"
    const thoughtActionMatch = llmOutput.match(/Thought:\s*.*?\s*Action:\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)\s*\nAction Input:\s*(.*)/is);
    if (thoughtActionMatch) {
         console.warn("Recovered from Thought-Action format.");
         return {
            tool: thoughtActionMatch[1].trim(),
            input: thoughtActionMatch[2].trim(),
        };
    }
 
    // Heuristic 2: Simple case where Action/Input might be on same line or separated differently
    const simpleActionMatch = llmOutput.match(/Action:\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)\s*Input:\s*(.*)/is);
    if (simpleActionMatch) {
        console.warn("Recovered from simple Action-Input format.");
        return {
            tool: simpleActionMatch[1].trim(),
            input: simpleActionMatch[2].trim(),
        };
    }
 
    // If all recovery attempts fail
    console.error("Failed to parse LLM output after all attempts:", llmOutput);
    return null; // Signal a parsing failure, which the agent loop should handle
}

This parser prioritizes clarity and includes basic heuristics for common LLM deviations. When parsing fails, the agent loop should log the malformed output (visible in LangSmith) and, crucially, inject a message back to the LLM reminding it of the correct format. This self-correction mechanism is vital for robustness.

What I Learned

Building reliable agents isn't about finding the 'magic' model; it's about rigorous engineering:

  1. Observability is Key: Reluctantly, tools like LangSmith are indispensable for peering into the agent's "mind" and understanding failure trajectories. They reveal patterns of breakdown that are impossible to infer from simple input/output logs.
  2. The Prompt is the Low-Level Code: Every word, every instruction, every example in your prompt directly dictates the agent's behavior. Treat it with the same discipline you would a performance-critical C++ function.
  3. Constraints Aren't Suggestions: LLMs need explicit, reinforced constraints on output format and tool usage. They are creative, which is both a strength and a weakness. We must provide strong guardrails.
  4. Robust Parsing is Non-Negotiable: Anticipate LLM output errors. Implement custom parsers that can gracefully handle deviations, log failures, and ideally, provide feedback to the LLM for self-correction.
  5. Performance and Reliability Go Hand-in-Hand: A bloated framework introduces overhead and reduces visibility, making optimization and debugging harder. Direct API interaction and lean architecture empower you to build truly performant and reliable agents.

Ultimately, the journey to replicating complex cognitive architectures, like the human brain's MoE system, hinges on the reliability of its smallest components. Each agent, each specialized expert, must be a dependable module. By meticulously debugging trajectories and programming prompts with surgical precision, we get one step closer to agents that don't just "mostly work," but consistently deliver. This isn't just about shipping code; it's about building the foundational blocks of artificial general intelligence.