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

AI-generated keywords: Context Engineering Long-Horizon Tool-Using LLM Agents Enterprise Workflows GPT-5 Configurations Automated Expense Itemization

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Authors address challenges faced by large language models deployed as autonomous agents in enterprise workflows
  • Focus on verbose tool responses leading to context overflow, stale-state errors, and high inference cost in automated expense itemization within Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations using Model Context Protocol tools
  • Evaluation of four different configurations of GPT-5 on a 50-task hotel expense benchmark
  • No user model achieves only 8.0% complete itemization
  • Retaining full conversation history improves completion to 71.0%, but at a significant cost
  • Pruning context to last 5 tool call/response pairs enhances completion to 79.0%
  • Adding automated summarization to pruning recent interactions achieves a completion rate of 91.6% for itemization and an average amount itemized of 99.64%
  • Selective retention of recent tool interactions combined with compact summarization significantly enhances reliability and efficiency compared to retaining full-history context
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Abhilasha Lodha, Mahsa Pahlavikhah Varnosfaderani, Abir Chakraborty, Abhinav Mithal

17 pages, 3 figures, 8 tables

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, 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.

Submitted to arXiv on 08 Jun. 2026

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2606.10209v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In their study titled "Less Context, Better Agents: Efficient Context Engineering for Long-Horizon Tool-Using LLM Agents," authors Abhilasha Lodha, Mahsa Pahlavikhah Varnosfaderani, Abir Chakraborty, and Abhinav Mithal address the challenges faced by large language models deployed as autonomous agents in enterprise workflows. They focus on the issue of verbose tool responses from enterprise systems leading to context overflow, stale-state errors, and high inference cost specifically in automated expense itemization within Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations using Model Context Protocol tools. The research evaluates four different configurations of GPT-5 on a 50-task hotel expense benchmark. These configurations include no user model, full conversation history retention, context pruned to the last 5 tool call/response pairs, and pruning with automated summarization. The results are based on averaging across 5 independent runs while keeping the user model constant for comparison in context engineering. The baseline scenario without a user model achieves only 8.0% complete itemization. Retaining full conversation history improves completion to 71.0%, but at a significant cost of consuming 1,480,996 tokens and taking 14.56 hours per benchmark. Pruning the context to only the last 5 tool calls enhances completion to 79.0%, while reducing token usage to 535,274 and runtime to 5.39 hours. The most successful configuration involves adding automated summarization to pruning recent interactions which achieves a completion rate of 91.6% for itemization and an average amount itemized of 99.64%. This is accomplished with a token use of 553,374 and a runtime of 5.79 hours. Additionally, the study reports 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. Overall, the findings demonstrate that selective retention of recent tool interactions combined with compact summarization can significantly enhance both reliability and efficiency compared to retaining full-history context in this class of enterprise tool-use workflows.
Created on 13 Jun. 2026

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.