Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper compares agent orchestration frameworks (e.g., LangGraph) to a simpler in-context prompting approach for procedural tasks. The authors found that in-context prompting, where the entire procedure is included in the system prompt, outperforms agent orchestration across three domains: travel booking, Zoom technical support, and insurance claims processing. This suggests that for current frontier models, external orchestration is no longer necessary for multi-turn conversations with defined procedures.
Agent orchestration frameworks might be overkill: simply including the entire procedure in the system prompt yields better performance on procedural tasks.
Agent orchestration frameworks -- LangGraph, CrewAI, Google ADK, OpenAI Agents SDK, and others -- place an external orchestrator above the LLM, tracking state and injecting routing instructions at every turn. We present a controlled comparison showing that for procedural tasks, this architecture is dominated by a simpler alternative: putting the entire procedure in the system prompt and letting the model self-orchestrate. Across three domains -- travel booking (14 nodes), Zoom technical support (14 nodes), and insurance claims processing (55 nodes) -- we evaluate 200 conversations per condition using LLM-as-judge scoring on five quality criteria. The in-context approach scores 4.53--5.00 on a 5-point scale while a LangGraph orchestrator using the same model scores 4.17--4.84. The orchestrated system fails on 24% of travel, 9% of Zoom, and 17% of insurance conversations, compared to 11.5%, 0.5%, and 5% for the in-context baseline. While external orchestration may have been necessary for earlier models, advances in frontier model capabilities have made it unnecessary for multi-turn conversations following a defined procedure.
