Cluster: Single-Agent Patterns

TLDR

A single-agent pattern is the foundational architecture of agentic AI, where a lone Large Language Model (LLM) is empowered with a reasoning loop, external tools, and memory to solve tasks autonomously. Unlike rigid workflows, single-agent patterns utilize the ReAct (Reason + Act) framework to dynamically plan and execute steps based on real-time feedback. While multi-agent systems offer higher complexity, the single-agent pattern remains the industry standard for specialized tasks like data analysis, customer support, and personal assistants due to its lower latency, reduced token cost, and ease of debugging.

---

Conceptual Overview

Defining the Single-Agent Entity

In the hierarchy of AI design, the single-agent pattern represents the "atomic unit" of autonomy. It is defined not just by the underlying model, but by the orchestration layer that surrounds it. A single agent consists of four core pillars:

1. The Brain (LLM): The reasoning engine that processes natural language and generates structured plans.
2. Planning: The ability to break down a complex user request into a sequence of sub-tasks.
3. Memory: The retention of short-term conversation history and long-term knowledge retrieval (RAG).
4. Tools: The interface (APIs, SDKs, or local functions) that allows the agent to interact with the physical or digital world.

The ReAct Framework: The Core Logic

The most prevalent single-agent pattern is the ReAct (Reason + Act) framework[src:001]. Traditional LLMs often suffer from "hallucination" or "narrow reasoning" when asked to perform multi-step tasks. ReAct solves this by forcing the model to generate a "Thought" before taking an "Action."

The cycle follows a strict loop:

• Input: The user provides a goal (e.g., "Find the current stock price of NVIDIA and compare it to its 52-week high").
• Thought: The agent reasons about what it needs (e.g., "I need to find the current price first, then the 52-week high").
• Action: The agent selects a tool (e.g., get_stock_price(ticker="NVDA")).
• Observation: The system executes the tool and returns the result to the agent.
• Repeat: The agent updates its "Thought" based on the "Observation" and continues until the task is complete.

Agent vs. Workflow

It is critical to distinguish between an Agent and a Workflow[src:002].

• Workflows are deterministic. They follow a pre-defined path (e.g., Step A -> Step B -> Step C). Even if they use LLMs for data transformation, the path is hardcoded.
• Agents are non-deterministic. The LLM decides the path at runtime. If Step B fails or returns unexpected data, the agent can decide to go back to Step A or try a different tool entirely.

Infographic: The Single-Agent Reasoning Loop

The following diagram illustrates the internal state machine of a single-agent pattern:

graph TD
    A[User Request] --> B{Reasoning Engine}
    B --> C[Generate Thought]
    C --> D[Select Tool/Action]
    D --> E[Execute Tool]
    E --> F[Observation/Result]
    F --> B
    B --> G[Final Answer]
    
    subgraph Memory
    H[Short-term Context]
    I[Long-term RAG]
    end
    
    H <--> B
    I <--> B

---

Practical Implementations

Tool Calling and Function Schemas

For a single-agent pattern to work, the LLM must know how to use its tools. This is achieved through Function Calling[src:004]. Developers provide the model with a JSON schema describing the tool's name, description, and required parameters.

Example Schema:

The agent uses this schema to generate a structured call. The orchestration layer (like LangChain or Haystack) intercepts this call, runs the actual code, and feeds the output back into the model's context window.

Memory Management

Single-agent patterns require sophisticated memory to maintain state across multiple turns of the ReAct loop:

1. Conversation Buffer: Stores the literal transcript of the interaction.
2. Summary Memory: Uses an LLM to periodically summarize the conversation to save tokens and stay within the context window.
3. Vector Memory: Uses embeddings to retrieve relevant documents or past experiences that are not currently in the active context.

Error Handling and Self-Correction

A robust single-agent implementation must handle "Tool Failures." If an API returns a 404 error, the agent should not crash. Instead, the error message is passed back as an Observation. A well-prompted agent will see the error and attempt a "Self-Correction" (e.g., "The search tool failed for 'NVIDIA'; I will try searching for 'NVDA' instead").

---

Advanced Techniques

A: Comparing Prompt Variants

Optimization is the most significant challenge in single-agent design. Developers often use A: Comparing prompt variants to determine which system instructions lead to the highest tool-calling accuracy.

• Variant 1: "You are a helpful assistant. Use tools when needed."
• Variant 2: "You are a precise data analyst. You MUST use the query_db tool for any numerical request. Do not guess."

By running these variants through an evaluation framework (like Promptfoo or LangSmith), developers can quantify which prompt reduces "hallucinated tool calls" or "infinite loops."

Reflection and Self-Criticism

Advanced patterns incorporate a "Reflection" step. Before providing the final answer, the agent is prompted to review its own work: "Review your previous steps. Is there any contradiction in the data you retrieved?" This internal monologue significantly improves performance on complex reasoning tasks.

Dynamic Tool Discovery

In systems with hundreds of potential tools, providing all schemas in a single prompt exceeds the context window and confuses the model. Advanced single-agent patterns use Dynamic Tool Discovery, where a "Router" agent (or a semantic search) identifies the top 5 most relevant tools for the specific user query and injects only those into the prompt.

---

Research and Future Directions

Small Language Models (SLMs) as Agents

Current research is focused on making 7B and 8B parameter models (like Llama 3 or Mistral) as capable at tool-calling as GPT-4. This involves fine-tuning models specifically on "Function Calling" datasets to ensure they follow JSON schemas perfectly without the overhead of a massive model.

Model Context Protocol (MCP)

The industry is moving toward a standardized protocol for how agents connect to data sources. The Model Context Protocol (MCP)[src:005] aims to replace bespoke API integrations with a universal standard, allowing a single-agent pattern to "plug and play" with any database, file system, or SaaS tool without custom glue code.

The "Agentic Shift" in UI

Future single-agent patterns will likely move away from chat interfaces toward Generative UI. Instead of the agent describing a chart, it will autonomously call a "UI Tool" to render a React component directly in the user's browser, creating a seamless bridge between reasoning and visualization.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: When should I use a single-agent pattern instead of a multi-agent system?

A: Use a single-agent pattern when the task is specialized and can be handled by one "persona." Single agents are faster, cheaper, and easier to debug. Multi-agent systems are better for "adversarial" tasks (e.g., one agent writes code, another tries to break it) or tasks requiring vastly different expertise (e.g., a legal expert and a software engineer).

Q: How do I prevent my agent from getting stuck in an infinite loop?

A: Implement a max_iterations constraint in your orchestration layer. Typically, 5–10 iterations are sufficient for most tasks. If the agent exceeds this, it should trigger a fallback mechanism or ask the user for clarification.

Q: What is the best way to handle long-term memory in a single agent?

A: Use a hybrid approach. Keep the last 5–10 messages in the immediate context (Conversation Buffer) and use a Vector Database (like Pinecone or Milvus) to store and retrieve older information based on semantic relevance (RAG).

Q: Can a single agent use multiple tools in one step?

A: Yes. Modern models support "Parallel Function Calling," where the LLM can output multiple tool calls in a single turn (e.g., "Check the weather in London AND Paris"). The system executes these in parallel and returns all observations simultaneously.

Q: How does "A: Comparing prompt variants" help in production?

A: It allows you to perform A/B testing on the agent's "personality" and "logic." By comparing variants, you can find the prompt that minimizes token usage while maximizing the "Success Rate" of the agent's goals, leading to more cost-effective and reliable systems.

{
  "articleId": "article-cluster-single-agent-patterns",
  "title": "Cluster: Single-Agent Patterns",
  "description": "A comprehensive technical guide to single-agent AI design patterns, focusing on ReAct, tool-calling, and autonomous reasoning.",
  "keywords": [
    "single-agent pattern",
    "ReAct framework",
    "AI agents",
    "function calling",
    "LLM orchestration",
    "autonomous reasoning",
    "agentic AI"
  ],
  "termDefinitions": [
    {
      "term": "A: Comparing prompt variants",
      "definition": "The process of systematically testing and evaluating different system prompt versions to optimize an agent's tool-calling accuracy, reasoning path, and output reliability."
    }
  ],
  "entitySEO": [
    {
      "entity": "Large Language Model",
      "relevance": "high"
    },
    {
      "entity": "ReAct Framework",
      "relevance": "high"
    },
    {
      "entity": "Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)",
      "relevance": "medium"
    },
    {
      "entity": "JSON Schema",
      "relevance": "high"
    },
    {
      "entity": "Context Window",
      "relevance": "medium"
    }
  ],
  "metadata": {
    "wordCount": 1582,
    "sourceCount": 5,
    "complexity": "intermediate",
    "isEvergreen": true
  }
}