Agent Sprawl
Splitting work across multiple specialized agents — planner, executor, critic, validator — when a single agent with well-designed tools and prompts would do the job. Treating multi-agent as the default architecture rather than a last resort.
Cognition (makers of Devin) explicitly avoids multi-agent systems for this reason.
Why It Happens
- Multi-agent maps intuitively to human team structures
- Framework demos make orchestration look easy
- It feels more "sophisticated" and architecturally impressive
- Genuine intuition that decomposition helps — just applied too eagerly
- Research papers on multi-agent are exciting and plentiful
What Goes Wrong
- Telephone game — information degrades as context passes between agents, with each agent missing details
- Conflicting decisions — parallel agents make inconsistent assumptions about architecture and style
- Coordination overhead — orchestration, error handling, and retry logic across agents is complex
- Higher cost — every agent hop is an additional LLM call
- Harder to debug — failures span multiple agents with no single trace
What to Do Instead
- Start with a single agent — add complexity only when simpler solutions fail
- Use tools, not agents — give one agent better tools rather than splitting into multiple agents
- Read-only sub-agents only — if you must decompose, use sub-agents for information gathering only, not decision-making
- Single decision-maker — keep one coherent entity making all consequential decisions
Multi-agent is warranted only when:
- Domains are clearly distinct with separate tools and context
- A single context window can't fit the required information
- You need fundamentally separate conversation states
Signs You Have This
- You have agents whose only job is to pass data between other agents
- A single well-prompted agent could do what your 5-agent system does
- Agent coordination code is more complex than the actual task logic
- You're debugging inter-agent communication failures more than actual task failures