Claude Architect · Lekcja

Ile narzędzi powinien mieć agent

Optymalnie 4–5; przy 18 lub więcej niezawodność wyboru spada

Ile narzędzi powinien mieć agent to bezpłatna lekcja Claude Architect na CoddyKit. To lekcja 1 z 4. Możesz przeczytać całą lekcję poniżej za darmo — a potem ćwiczyć ją interaktywnie w przeglądarce z wbudowanym edytorem kodu i tutorem AI dostępnym 24/7. To część ścieżki edukacyjnej Claude Architect, a Twój postęp synchronizuje się między webem a aplikacją CoddyKit. Kurs Claude Architect zawiera 4 lekcji w sumie.

Części tej lekcji nie zostały jeszcze przetłumaczone i są wyświetlane po angielsku.

The Selection Problem

When you give an agent a set of tools, the model has to do something subtle on every turn: read all the tool descriptions and pick the right one for the current step.

This is a selection task. The more options you add, the harder that choice becomes. A focused toolset keeps selection sharp; an overloaded one makes the model hesitate, mis-route, or grab the wrong tool.

This lesson answers a deceptively simple question: how many tools should one agent hold?

The Rule of Thumb

The practical sweet spot is 4-5 tools per agent. At this size the model can reliably reason about which tool fits each step.

As the count climbs, selection reliability degrades. By around 18+ tools on a single agent, the model starts confusing similar options and choosing poorly. More tools does NOT mean more capability — past a point it means less reliable capability.

4-5 tools → optimal selection
18+ tools → degraded selection reliability

A Well-Scoped Agent

Here is a support agent with a tight, role-scoped toolset. Four tools, each with a clear job: verify the customer, look up their order, process a refund, and escalate to a human.

The model never has to wonder which of twenty near-identical tools to call. Each one maps to a distinct intent.

tools = [
    {"name": "get_customer", "description": "...", "input_schema": {...}},
    {"name": "lookup_order", "description": "...", "input_schema": {...}},
    {"name": "process_refund", "description": "...", "input_schema": {...}},
    {"name": "escalate_to_human", "description": "...", "input_schema": {...}},
]

response = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-5",
    max_tokens=1024,
    system="You are a support agent. Verify identity before any refund.",
    tools=tools,
    messages=messages,
)

Descriptions Do the Selecting

An important nuance: the model selects tools primarily from their descriptions, not their names. A good description states the tool's purpose, its return values, input formats with examples, edge cases, and applicability boundaries.

This is why tool count and tool quality interact. Even 5 tools will mis-route if their descriptions overlap or are ambiguous. The more tools you pile on, the more likely two of them sound alike, and the more selection errors you get.

{
    "name": "lookup_order",
    "description": "Retrieve a single order by its order ID. "
        "Input: order_id (string, e.g. 'ORD-10482'). "
        "Returns: items, status, total, and ship date. "
        "Use AFTER get_customer confirms identity. "
        "Does NOT search by email — use lookup_order, not find_orders.",
    "input_schema": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {"order_id": {"type": "string"}},
        "required": ["order_id"],
    },
}

What Too Many Tools Looks Like

Imagine cramming an entire department onto one agent: customer tools, order tools, billing tools, inventory tools, shipping tools, analytics tools... twenty-plus entries in one tools array.

Now several of them sound similar — lookup_order, find_orders, get_order_history, search_purchases. The model has to disambiguate on every turn, and its accuracy drops. Too many tools per agent is a recognized anti-pattern, right alongside ambiguous descriptions.

Scope Tools to the Role

The fix is not to make descriptions ever longer — it is to scope tools to the role. Ask: what is THIS agent's job, and what is the minimum set of tools it needs to do it?

A refund agent needs identity, order, refund, and escalation tools. It does not need inventory forecasting or marketing analytics. Trimming irrelevant tools removes distractors and sharpens every remaining selection.

Split With Multi-Agent Architecture

When a task genuinely needs many capabilities, you do not put them all on one agent. You use a hub-and-spoke multi-agent design: a coordinator decomposes the work and delegates to specialized subagents, each with its own narrow toolset.

Twenty tools spread across four subagents (5 each) selects far more reliably than twenty tools on one agent. Remember: subagents do NOT inherit the coordinator's history, so each subagent prompt must carry its own context explicitly.

research_agent = AgentDefinition(
    name="research_agent",
    description="Searches sources and extracts findings.",
    system_prompt="You gather and cite evidence for a sub-question.",
    allowed_tools=["web_search", "fetch_page", "extract_quote"],
)

verify_agent = AgentDefinition(
    name="verify_agent",
    description="Cross-checks claims against sources.",
    system_prompt="You validate claims and flag conflicts.",
    allowed_tools=["fetch_page", "compare_sources", "flag_conflict"],
)

Least Privilege Per Subagent

Splitting tools across subagents brings a bonus: least privilege. Each AgentDefinition declares only the allowed_tools it actually needs.

A read-only research subagent never gets a process_refund or delete tool, so it cannot misfire one. Smaller, role-scoped toolsets are both more reliable (better selection) and more secure (narrower blast radius). One coordinator rule to remember: the coordinator's allowedTools must include "Task" so it can delegate.

Tools vs. Resources in MCP

Not everything an agent needs has to be a Tool. In MCP, server primitives split into three kinds:

Tools — actions the model invokes
Resources — read-only data/context like schemas or catalogs
Prompts — reusable templates

If the model just needs to read a schema or a product catalog, expose it as a Resource, not a Tool. That keeps your tools array lean and reserved for genuine actions — another lever for staying near 4-5 actionable tools.

Built-in Tools Are Already Scoped

Claude Code's built-in toolset is a good model of disciplined scoping. Each tool has one crisp job:

Glob — find files by pattern (e.g. **/*.test.tsx)
Grep — search file contents
Read / Write / Edit — load, create, precisely change files
Bash — run shell commands

None of them overlap. The model composes them in an incremental flow — Grep entry points, Read files, Grep usages, Read consumers — rather than choosing among redundant options.

# Incremental investigation with non-overlapping tools
Grep "createOrder"        # find entry points
Read src/orders/api.ts    # load the file
Grep "api.createOrder"     # find usages
Read src/checkout/page.ts  # load consumers

A Practical Allocation Checklist

Before shipping an agent, run this check:

Is the toolset near 4-5 tools, and well under 18?
Does each tool map to a distinct intent with a non-overlapping description?
Are read-only needs modeled as Resources, not Tools?
If you need more capabilities, can you split into subagents with least-privilege toolsets?

If you are stretching one agent past a dozen tools, that is the signal to decompose — not to write longer descriptions.

Quick Check: Tool Allocation

Apply the rule to a real design decision.

Recap: How Many Tools Per Agent

Key takeaways:

4-5 tools per agent is optimal; reliability degrades as you climb, and 18+ tools noticeably hurts selection.
The model selects from descriptions, so overlapping or ambiguous tools cause misrouting even at small counts.
Scope tools to the role — trim distractors instead of writing longer descriptions.
Need more capability? Split into subagents (hub-and-spoke) with least-privilege toolsets; pass context explicitly since subagents don't inherit history.
Model read-only needs as MCP Resources, not Tools, to keep the tools array lean.

Często zadawane pytania

Czy lekcja „Ile narzędzi powinien mieć agent” jest bezpłatna?

Tak — pełny tekst „Ile narzędzi powinien mieć agent” jest dostępny za darmo tutaj w sieci. Aby ćwiczyć ją interaktywnie (wbudowany edytor kodu i tutor AI dostępny 24/7) i odblokować resztę kursu Claude Architect, przejdź na CoddyKit PRO. Kurs Claude Architect zawiera 4 lekcji w sumie.

Co nauczysz się w „Ile narzędzi powinien mieć agent”?

Optymalnie 4–5; przy 18 lub więcej niezawodność wyboru spada Ćwiczysz Claude Architect z praktycznym kodem, który uruchamiasz bezpośrednio w przeglądarce, a tutor AI dostępny 24/7 odpowiada na Twoje pytania podczas pracy nad lekcją.

Czy potrzebuję doświadczenia, aby zacząć Claude Architect?

Nie wymagamy żadnego doświadczenia. Claude Architect w CoddyKit jest strukturyzowany dla początkujących i zaawansowanych użytkowników, więc możesz zacząć tutaj lub od początku i uczyć się w swoim tempie. To lekcja 1 z 4.

Ile czasu zajmuje lekcja „Ile narzędzi powinien mieć agent”?

Większość lekcji CoddyKit trwa około 5–10 minut. Każda lekcja to mały, interaktywny krok, dzięki czemu robisz systematyczne postępy i zawsze wracasz dokładnie do tego samego miejsca — na webie i w aplikacji.

Czy mogę pisać i uruchamiać kod w tej lekcji Claude Architect?

Tak. Każda lekcja Claude Architect zawiera wbudowany edytor kodu, więc piszesz i uruchamiasz prawdziwy kod bezpośrednio w przeglądarce i od razu otrzymujesz sprzężenie zwrotne od AI — bez konfiguracji na komputerze.

Wszystkie lekcje w tym kursie

← Powrót do Claude Architect