AWS Community Builder | Cloud | DevOps Engineer | Blogger
-> I'm an enthusiastic DevOps professional with over 3+ years of hands-on expertise in cloud infrastructure management and orchestrating the deployment of applications which are ready for production. -> Excellent problem-solving skills and a proactive learner, staying updated with the latest trends in DevOps and Cloud Computing. 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐨𝐮𝐜𝐡 -> 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧 : If you're interested in engaging in technical discussions or connecting professionally, please feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn. -> 𝐄𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 : ncpr.0912@gmail.com
Markdown supported · ⌘↵ to post
Kartik N V J K
The 5 tools at 95% versus 30 tools at 48% number is the one I keep coming back to, because it reframes tool overload as a measurable accuracy cliff rather than a vague smell. Splitting into special-purpose agents helps, but it moves the risk to the handoff, which is where I see most multi-agent systems actually break. I wrote up how I vet MCP servers before trusting them in an agent, the same trust concern from the tool side: kartiknvjk.hashnode.dev/how-i-evaluate-mcp-server… . Did accuracy recover once each sub-agent was back down to a handful of tools?