DEV Community

Cover image for Debugging AI Agents: Lessons from Week 1 That Changed How I Think About Autonomous Systems
Oni
Oni

Posted on

Debugging AI Agents: Lessons from Week 1 That Changed How I Think About Autonomous Systems

#googleaichallenge #ai #agents #devchallenge

This is a submission for the Google AI Agents Writing Challenge: Learning Reflections

The First Bug That Haunted Me (And Taught Me Everything)

Day 2 of the AI Agents Intensive Course. I was confident. I'd built ML models before, dabbled with transformers, even deployed a few AI projects. Then I hit my first major debugging session, and I realized I had no idea what I was doing.

The agent kept looping. Same thought process. Same action. Same result. Over and over. It wasn't crashing - which made it worse. It was stuck in a reasoning loop, unable to break free.

That's when I learned the first real lesson: debugging AI agents is fundamentally different from debugging code.

Why Traditional Debugging Breaks Down

With traditional code, I can:

  • Set breakpoints
  • Inspect variables
  • Trace execution paths
  • Reproduce bugs reliably

With agents, it's chaos:

  • The same prompt produces different outputs
  • Reasoning depends on LLM temperature, context, and probability distributions
  • The "execution path" isn't deterministic
  • Reproduction requires capturing the exact state, which is nearly impossible

The course showed me that agent debugging is about understanding reasoning patterns, not line-by-line execution.

The Three Debugging Patterns That Saved My Projects

1. Thought Tracing (The ReAct Lifesaver)

I was building a task decomposition agent that kept generating vague sub-tasks. The agent could "think" fine but couldn't break down problems meaningfully.

The breakthrough: I added explicit thought logging and examined the actual reasoning steps:

Thought: "I need to analyze the user's request"
Action: read_documentation
Observation: [entire documentation]
Thought: "Now I understand"
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The problem was obvious once I saw it: the agent was reading TOO MUCH context. It was drowning in information.

Fix: Structured prompts with explicit reasoning checkpoints:

Step 1: IDENTIFY the core problem in 1 sentence
Step 2: LIST the sub-tasks needed (max 5)
Step 3: ASSIGN priority to each
Step 4: EXECUTE in order
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

This simple structure reduced looping by 80% and made reasoning transparent.

2. Tool Instrumentation (The Observation Lens)

My weather-forecasting agent kept making terrible predictions. The reasoning seemed sound, but the outputs were nonsensical.

I instrumented my tools to log what the agent was actually observing:

def weather_api_call(location):
    result = fetch_weather(location)
    log_observation(f"Agent received: {result}")
    return result
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Turns out the agent was receiving incomplete JSON responses. It was reasoning perfectly based on garbage data.

Lesson: The agent isn't broken. The tool integration is. Agents are only as good as their tools provide observations.

This realization changed how I architect agent systems:

  • Structured tool outputs (JSON schema validation)
  • Verbose observations with context
  • Tool-specific error handling

3. Prompt Archaeology (The Iterative Refinement)

My MindCareAI assessment agent kept recommending interventions that weren't appropriate. I was about to blame the model when I realized:

I had never explicitly told the agent when to say "I don't know."

I'd given it 50 rules about what TO do, but zero guidance on what NOT to do.

I added explicit boundaries to the system prompt:

You are a mental health assessment advisor.
ALWAYS respect these limits:
- Never diagnose clinical disorders (that's for professionals)
- Flag high-risk indicators for immediate professional referral
- Acknowledge uncertainty: "Based on available information..."
- Suggest professional help when unsure
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Suddenly the agent became more trustworthy, not because it was smarter, but because it understood its boundaries.

The Debugging Mindset Shift

Before the course, debugging was about finding bugs.

Now, I understand debugging agents is about:

  1. Understanding what the agent observes (tool outputs, context)
  2. Validating the reasoning steps (thought traces)
  3. Verifying alignment with intent (does the behavior match goals?)
  4. Setting clear boundaries (what should the agent NOT do?)

Practical Debugging Tools I Now Use

Tool #1: Verbose Logging

Every agent interaction gets logged with timestamps, reasoning steps, tool calls, and observations. I can replay agent behavior and understand exactly where it went wrong.

Tool #2: Prompt Versioning

Like code versioning, I maintain versions of system prompts:

v1.0 - Initial prompt (too vague, agent looped)
v1.1 - Added ReAct structure (80% better)
v1.2 - Added tool-specific instructions (fixed bad observations)
v2.0 - Added boundary conditions (fixed unsafe recommendations)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Tool #3: Test Cases for Reasoning

I test agents like I test code:

  • Edge cases: "What if the tool fails?"
  • Ambiguous inputs: "What if the user request is vague?"
  • Boundary conditions: "What if data is missing?"
  • Adversarial inputs: "What if the user asks something the agent shouldn't do?"

Tool #4: Monitoring Agent Health

I track metrics that matter for agents:

  • Loop detection (same reasoning repeated?)
  • Tool success rate (are tools returning useful data?)
  • Action diversity (is the agent trying different approaches?)
  • Decision quality (are recommendations reasonable?)

The Mindset: Agents as Living Systems

The biggest mindset shift happened when I stopped thinking of agents as deterministic programs and started thinking of them as learning interpreters.

They don't execute instructions. They reason about problems and decide actions.

This means:

  • Bugs aren't always reproducible
  • Improvements come from better prompts, not code patches
  • Safety requires constraints, not features
  • Understanding is more valuable than fixing

What I'm Applying to MindCareAI's Next Version

The assessment agent needed a complete rethink based on these lessons:

  1. Explicit Reasoning Checkpoints: Users see HOW the agent reached conclusions
  2. Tool Integration: Each diagnostic question is logged so I can see what data the agent actually observes
  3. Boundary Conditions: Clear rules about when to escalate to professionals
  4. Test Suite: Edge cases for mental health scenarios (risk indicators, ambiguous symptoms, etc.)
  5. Monitoring: Real-time dashboards showing agent reasoning quality

The Real Takeaway

Debugging AI agents taught me that human understanding of the reasoning process is more valuable than code correctness.

A bug-free agent that doesn't explain itself is useless.
A slightly imperfect agent with transparent reasoning is trustworthy.

This shift - from fixing code to understanding reasoning - is the bridge between building AI systems and building trustworthy AI systems.

The future of AI engineering isn't about building smarter agents. It's about building agents we can understand, verify, and trust.

That requires a completely different approach to debugging.

For fellow students building AI agents:
When your agent breaks, don't immediately start coding. First, understand what it's observing. Then validate its reasoning. Then set boundaries. The bug was probably there all along - you just needed to look at it from the agent's perspective.

That's the debugging mindset that separates experimental AI from production-ready systems.

Top comments (0)