Gå til indhold
Use casesLærOm mig
cleverest
Library

Agent design principles

Agent design principles

Agent design principles are a set of guidelines for building AI agents that work reliably in production environments. Unlike experimental prototypes, production agents must be predictable, auditable, and maintainable by teams beyond their original creators. These principles prioritize deterministic intelligence over raw cognitive power, recognizing that business contexts demand consistency above cleverness.

The core insight is counterintuitive: simpler agents with clean context outperform sophisticated agents with bloated inputs. This stems from the nature of language models, which parse ambiguous human language that evolved for flexible social communication rather than deterministic task execution.

The seven principles

Pick problems that actually matter. Starting with low-stakes experiments backfires because trivial problems receive trivial attention. When outcomes don't matter, teams won't prioritize debugging, won't care about output quality, and won't build necessary verification systems. Meaningful problems create the right incentives for proper design.

Start with outcomes rather than inputs. Successful agent design works backwards from a concrete definition of "done." The critical question isn't what enters the system — it's how you'll verify the agent performed correctly. For marketing copy, verification might mean checking reading level; for healthcare operations categorizing medical information, it requires detailed audit trails and zero tolerance for errors.

Use the dumbest agent that can do the job. Maximum reasoning power leads to unpredictable behavior. In business contexts, predictability comes from simplicity and clarity, not raw cognitive power. Hallucinations in business settings are subtle: an agent following the process correctly but making different choices due to prompt ambiguity creates business logic errors that guardrails won't catch. Multiple simple agents doing individual tasks in sequence provide audit trails and debuggable failures that a single sophisticated agent cannot.

Design for clean context, not large context. Stuffing context windows with everything potentially relevant confuses models and burns tokens unnecessarily. Agentic systems run at volume; fat contexts add up quickly across hundreds or thousands of daily operations. Each agent node should receive exactly what it needs for its specific decision, formatted clearly, with nothing extraneous.

Ensure tool choice clarity. As tool integration becomes simpler, tool choice ambiguity emerges as a new failure mode. Each agent should receive only the specific tools appropriate to its task, with unambiguous instructions for selection — starting with the smallest possible tool collection prevents the equivalent of giving a child access to a full woodshop.

One meaningful goal beats many mediocre ones. Focus on one workflow, build it properly, verify it works reliably, then expand methodically. Without standards, different teams create incompatible conventions that nobody can maintain.

Ambiguous prompts create organizational vulnerabilities. People load prompts with adjectives and contextual language, then wonder why agents behave unpredictably. At scale, insecure agents generating production workloads that nobody monitors become genuine risks. Structured instructions with minimal ambiguity, clear success definitions at each step, and consideration for whoever will debug the system months later are all required.

Application in practice

Applying these principles means resisting common temptations: tackling impressive problems rather than reliable ones, using the most powerful model rather than the simplest that works predictably, providing comprehensive context rather than curating minimal focused inputs for each decision point.

Organizations benefit from establishing standards before widespread adoption creates conflicting conventions — agreeing on principles as a team, using simple workflows with clean context and minimal tool collections, and vetting prompts for ambiguity before deployment.

Context provides expertise, not persona

Telling an AI "you are an expert copywriter" or "you are a compliance specialist" provides no capability the model doesn't already have. Research suggests persona prompting provides no measurable quality improvement, and practitioners who once relied heavily on this technique often abandon it after seeing no consistent benefit.

What does provide effective specialization is context. An agent checking CE-marking compliance gains expertise from having access to the specific checklist it must follow, not from being told it's a compliance officer. The materials an agent receives — reference documents, checklists, examples, rules — determine its capability far more than any identity framing.

This insight shapes architecture: rather than one sophisticated agent told it has multiple areas of expertise, effective designs create multiple focused agents each with narrow context appropriate to a specific task.

Separation of concerns through subagents

When an agent must simultaneously consider compliance requirements, terminology standards, punctuation rules, style guidelines, and structural conventions, hallucination risk rises and reliability falls. Breaking a single complex task into multiple focused subagents — each responsible for one aspect of review — produces narrower tasks less likely to overwhelm, debuggable failures, natural audit trails, and components that can be refined independently without destabilizing the whole.

The pattern applies wherever a single task involves multiple independent concerns. Rather than asking one agent to "review this document thoroughly," effective designs decompose the review into specific checks, assign each to a focused agent, and aggregate results — borrowing from software architecture the benefits of modularity, debuggability, and the ability to improve individual components without full system redesign.

Related pages