CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Jun 10, 2026

Less Context, Better Agents: Efficient Context Engineering for Long-Horizon Tool-Using LLM Agents

arXiv AI Archived Jun 10, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2606.10209v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models deployed as autonomous agents for enterprise workflows face a key challenge: verbose tool responses from enterprise systems can cause context overflow, stale-state errors, and high inference cost. We study this problem in automated expense itemization in Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations using Model Context Protocol tools. We evaluate four GPT-5 configurations on a 50-task hotel expense benchmark: no user model, fu

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 8 Jun 2026] Less Context, Better Agents: Efficient Context Engineering for Long-Horizon Tool-Using LLM Agents Abhilasha Lodha, Mahsa Pahlavikhah Varnosfaderani, Abir Chakraborty, Abhinav Mithal Large language models deployed as autonomous agents for enterprise workflows face a key challenge: verbose tool responses from enterprise systems can cause context overflow, stale-state errors, and high inference cost. We study this problem in automated expense itemization in Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations using Model Context Protocol tools. We evaluate four GPT-5 configurations on a 50-task hotel expense benchmark: no user model, full conversation history, context pruned to the last 5 tool call/response pairs, and pruning with automated summarization. Results are averaged across 5 independent runs, with the user model held constant for the context-engineering comparison. The no-user-model baseline achieves only 8.0% complete itemization. Full-context retention improves completion to 71.0%, but consumes 1,480,996 tokens and 14.56 hours per benchmark. Pruning to the last 5 tool calls improves completion to 79.0% while reducing token use to 535,274 and runtime to 5.39 hours. Adding summarization achieves the best result: 91.6% complete itemization and 99.64% average amount itemized, with 553,374 tokens and 5.79 hours. We further report confidence intervals, effect-size analysis, sensitivity over pruning and summary windows, failure analysis, results across five expense types grouped into three categories, and cross-model evidence with Claude Sonnet 4.5. These results show that, for this class of enterprise tool-use workflow, selective retention of recent tool interactions plus compact summarization can improve both reliability and efficiency compared with full-history retention. Comments: 17 pages, 3 figures, 8 tables Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE) Cite as: arXiv:2606.10209 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2606.10209v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.10209 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Abhilasha Lodha [view email] [v1] Mon, 8 Jun 2026 22:01:28 UTC (48 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-06 Change to browse by: cs cs.LG cs.SE References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Jun 10, 2026
    Archived
    Jun 10, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗