DEV Community: 半安

Build Your First AI Agent in a Weekend: A Step-by-Step Tutorial

半安 — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:47:42 +0000

Reading about AI agents is one thing; building one is where the concepts finally click. This tutorial walks through creating a small but genuinely useful agent from scratch — the kind of project you can finish over a weekend and actually keep using. We'll skip the hype and focus on the concrete moving parts: the loop, the tools, the prompt, and the gotchas that trip up first-timers.

What We're Building
Our example agent is a research assistant that, given a question, can search the web, read the results, and write a short sourced summary. It's simple enough to build quickly but exercises every core concept: a reasoning loop, tool use, and result synthesis. Once you understand this pattern, you can swap the tools and aim it at almost any domain.

Step 1: Understand the Agent Loop
Strip away the jargon and an agent is just a loop around a language model:

The model receives the goal and the conversation so far.
It decides either to call a tool or to give a final answer.
If it calls a tool, your code runs the tool and feeds the result back into the conversation.
Repeat until the model produces a final answer (or you hit a step limit).
That's it. The "intelligence" is the model deciding what to do next; your code is the harness that executes those decisions and feeds results back. Everything else is detail.

Step 2: Pick Your Pieces
You need three things:

A model with tool-calling support. Any of the modern frontier models works. Pick one you have API access to.
One or two tools. For our agent: a web-search function and a fetch-page function. A tool is just a normal function plus a description and an input schema the model can read.
An orchestration layer. You can hand-roll the loop in fifty lines, or use a framework. For learning, hand-rolling first is genuinely worth it — frameworks hide the very mechanics you're trying to understand.
Step 3: Define Your Tools Clearly
This is where beginners lose the most time, so slow down here. Each tool needs a name, a description the model reads to decide when to use it, and a typed input schema. Treat the description as a prompt — it directly steers the model's behavior.

For our search tool, a good description is specific: "Search the web for current information on a topic. Use this when you need facts you don't already know. Returns a list of titles, URLs, and snippets." A vague description like "search tool" will cause the model to misuse it or skip it entirely.

Keep tools narrow. One tool, one job. It's far easier to debug a focused search_web and a focused fetch_page than one sprawling do_research that tries to do both.

Step 4: Write the System Prompt
The system prompt sets the agent's behavior and guardrails. For our research assistant, something like:

You are a research assistant. Break the question into what you need to find out. Use the search tool to find sources, then fetch the most promising ones to read details. Always cite the URLs you used. If sources conflict, say so. When you have enough information, write a concise summary — don't pad it.
Notice it tells the model how to work, not just what to be. Behavioral instructions ("break the question down," "cite sources," "don't pad") shape the agent far more than personality descriptions.

Step 5: Build the Loop and Add Guardrails
Now wire it together: send the goal and tools to the model, check whether it returned a tool call or a final answer, execute tool calls, append results, and repeat. Two guardrails are non-negotiable from the start:

A maximum step count. Agents can loop forever if confused. Cap it (say, 10 steps) and return a graceful message if it's hit.
Error handling in tools. When a search fails, return "search failed, try a different query" rather than throwing. The model can recover from a readable error; a crash kills the whole run.
Step 6: Test on Real Questions and Iterate
Run it against questions you actually care about and read the full trace — every tool call and result, not just the final answer. This is the single most valuable debugging habit. You'll quickly spot patterns: maybe it searches with overly long queries, or stops reading after one source. Fix these by tweaking the tool descriptions and system prompt. Most agent improvement is prompt-and-tool iteration, not code changes.

If you'd like worked examples and structured walkthroughs to go deeper than this overview, a curated set of AI agent tutorials covers everything from basic loops to connecting agents to live data sources and the Model Context Protocol — a good next step once your weekend project is running.

Common Mistakes to Avoid
Too many tools too soon. Start with two. Add more only when the agent clearly needs them.
Skipping the trace. Debugging an agent by its final answer alone is like debugging code with no stack trace.
Over-engineering the prompt. Start minimal, add instructions only in response to observed failures. A bloated prompt is hard to reason about.
Ignoring cost. Each step is a model call with growing context. Watch your token usage and set the step cap accordingly.
Where to Go Next
Once your research assistant works, the natural extensions teach you the rest of the field: add memory so it remembers across sessions, connect it to your own data via a vector store, or give it tools that act — sending an email, updating a record — instead of just reading. Each addition introduces a new concept (state, retrieval, write-permissions and safety) on top of a foundation you now understand.

The leap from reading about agents to building one is smaller than it looks — a single working loop demystifies the whole thing. For more guides spanning agents, skills, models, and MCP, aiskillnav.com is a solid resource to keep handy as your projects grow.

Choosing the Right LLM for Your Agent: A Builder's Comparison Framework

半安 — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:47:06 +0000

If you're building an AI agent, the model you pick is the single biggest lever on cost, latency, and reliability. Yet most teams choose based on whatever was trending on launch day, then quietly suffer the consequences in their cloud bill or their error logs. This piece lays out a practical, vendor-neutral way to compare large language models for agentic workloads — the kind where the model isn't just chatting, but calling tools, reasoning over multiple steps, and making decisions.

Why Agent Workloads Change the Calculus
Comparing models for a chatbot is easy: paste a few prompts, eyeball the answers. Agents are harder because the failure modes are different. An agent makes dozens of model calls per task, chains tool invocations, and has to recover when something goes wrong. A model that writes beautiful prose but flubs structured tool calls 5% of the time will wreck a multi-step workflow, because those error rates compound across steps.

So the questions that matter for agents aren't "which model is smartest?" but rather:

How reliably does it emit valid, well-formed tool calls?
Does it follow a system prompt's constraints under pressure?
How does latency stack up when you're making many sequential calls?
What does it actually cost at the token volumes agents generate?
The Five Dimensions Worth Measuring

Tool-calling fidelity
This is the make-or-break property for agents. You want a model that reliably picks the right function, fills in arguments that match your schema, and doesn't invent parameters. Test this with your actual tools, not toy examples. Feed it ambiguous requests and watch whether it asks for clarification or confidently calls the wrong thing.
Instruction following
Agents lean heavily on system prompts to stay on-rails: "never expose internal IDs," "always confirm before deleting." Some models hold these constraints across a long conversation; others drift after a few turns. Long-horizon adherence matters more than one-shot cleverness.
Context handling
Modern models advertise large context windows, but advertised length and effective recall are different things. Measure whether the model actually uses information buried in the middle of a long context, not just the beginning and end. For agents that accumulate state, this is critical.
Latency and throughput
A reasoning-heavy model that takes ten seconds per call feels fine in a demo and miserable in a loop that runs forty times. Some providers offer faster, smaller variants that trade a little accuracy for big speed gains — often the right call for routine steps, reserving the heavyweight model for the hard ones.
Cost at realistic volume
Per-token prices look small until you multiply by the token count of a full agent trajectory with tool results fed back in. Estimate cost per completed task, not per token, and you'll often find the ranking flips.

A Tiered Strategy Beats Picking One Model
The teams that ship reliable, affordable agents rarely standardize on a single model. Instead they route:

A fast, cheap model for classification, routing, and simple extraction.
A strong general model for the main reasoning and tool orchestration.
A top-tier reasoning model reserved for genuinely hard planning steps.
This tiering can cut costs dramatically without hurting quality, because most steps in a real workflow are easy. The orchestration layer decides which tier handles each step.

To make these decisions without re-running benchmarks yourself every quarter, it helps to keep a reference handy. A side-by-side AI model comparison of the major options — covering the leading Claude, GPT, and Gemini families — is a sensible starting point for narrowing the field before you invest in your own evaluation harness.

Build Your Own Eval — It's Worth It
Public benchmarks are useful for a rough sort, but they rarely reflect your domain. Spend an afternoon assembling 20–50 representative tasks from your real use case: the messy inputs, the edge cases, the requests that trip up your current setup. Run each candidate model through that suite and score on the dimensions above. This small investment pays for itself the first time it stops you from shipping a model that looks great on Twitter and falls apart on your data.

A few tips for a fair comparison:

Hold the prompt and tools constant across models; change only the model.
Run each task several times — model outputs are stochastic, and a single sample lies.
Track failures by category (bad tool call, ignored constraint, hallucinated fact) so you know why a model loses, not just that it did.
Re-run quarterly. Model versions change, and a regression on your tasks won't show up in a vendor's changelog.
Don't Forget the Boring Stuff
Beyond raw capability, the operational details decide whether a model is viable in production: rate limits that fit your traffic, data-handling and retention terms your compliance team can live with, regional availability, and how gracefully the provider handles version deprecation. A model that's 3% better but rate-limits you at peak traffic is the wrong choice.

The Takeaway
There is no single "best" model for agents — there's the best model for your task at your budget under your latency constraints. Treat model selection as an ongoing engineering decision rather than a one-time bet: measure on your own tasks, tier aggressively, and revisit as the landscape shifts. For a broader map of agents, skills, and the Model Context Protocol alongside model comparisons, aiskillnav.com is a useful reference to keep bookmarked as you build.