Sounds like you completely lack all reading comprehension ability
LLMs sometimes like to execute one-off Python scripts to make edits to files rather than just calling the edit tool directly. Both are tool calls so saying that you should have it write code instead of doing tool calls makes no sense because writing code is a tool call for it...
[flagged]
Are you saying scripts from agents are deterministic? :)
Why don't you try to dispove me. Yes, they are _more_ deterministic than tool calls and consume less tokens.
There is nothing to disprove as you don't understand what does a word mean. Deterministic is not a spectrum, they can either be deterministic or not. In both cases, they are not.
Oh, I'm so sorry I touched your paper feelings.
How dared I to imply that some LLM output is more deterministic than the other, your LLM majesty. Shame on me and my entire family! For generations to come!
So sorry I implied that the code that doesn't work and has to be fixed later is deterministic in its execution and can be reused later instead of being re-generated from scratch!
Will I ever wash it off my name, your grace?
They're talking about writing a file with a harness-native Edit tool. They're saying the agents aren't doing that, but are using ad-hoc methods of writing the files. (My agents seem to prefer see these days.)
Why do you think your agents prefer to create scripts instead of doing tool calls these days?
I wonder, is it easier to modify a script that agent wrote before to satisfy your prompt, or is it easier to write a new one from scratch each time a retry happens?
Are input tokens more expensive than output tokens?
My god. They are not reusing the scripts. They are adhoc, inline Python scripts just used to make a single edit. You seem to fundamentally not understand what everyone else is talking about
They do reuse scripts, though. Maybe it's you who is too lazy to _comprehend_ the output?
Or, maybe your prompts are not good enough. And it's not my problem to fix, as you claim you are very experienced.