llm/9b2efe03-4d9e-4db2-a79a-13cee83b17d6/topic-17-8980950e-fd53-4a4c-8f4f-325f549c9e7c-input.json
The following is content for you to summarize. Do not respond to the comments—summarize them. <topic> Tool Count Management # Discussion of whether 80+ tools in context is the real problem, suggesting sub-agents for areas of focus rather than compressing everything </topic> <comments_about_topic> 1. Do you need 80+ tools in context? Even if reduced, why not use sub agents for areas of focus? Context is gold and the more you put into it unrelated to the problem at hand the worse your outcome is. Even if you don't hit the limit of the window. Would be like compressing data to read into a string limit rather than just chunking the data 2. That's a fair point and honestly the ideal approach. But in practice most people don't hand-curate their MCP server list per task. They install 5-6 servers and suddenly have 80 tools loaded by default. Context-mode doesn't solve the tool definition bloat, that's the input side problem. It handles the output side, when those tools actually run and dump data back. Even with a focused set of tools, a single Playwright snapshot or git log can burn 50k tokens. That's what gets sandboxed. 3. > With 81+ tools active, I see your problem. 4. “you’re holding it wrong” - ok, or we could make it better 5. Sometimes people are actually holding it wrong though </comments_about_topic> Write a concise, engaging paragraph (3-5 sentences) summarizing the key points and perspectives in these comments about the topic. Focus on the most interesting viewpoints. Do not use bullet points—write flowing prose.
Tool Count Management # Discussion of whether 80+ tools in context is the real problem, suggesting sub-agents for areas of focus rather than compressing everything
5