Beyond Message Passing: A Semantic View of Agent Communication Protocols

As large language models (LLMs) advance and multi-agent systems aim to overcome the limits of standalone agents, robust communication protocols are becoming essential infrastructure for distributed agent networks. Nonetheless, the fragmented protocol landscape presents a significant interoperability challenge. This study develops a technical taxonomy to classify and analyze LLM agent communication protocols. Following an established iterative method, we defined the taxonomy's purpose, meta-characteristic, and ending conditions, then performed five iterations, three empirical-to-conceptual and two conceptual-to-empirical, on nine actively maintained open-source protocols with demonstrable adoption. The taxonomy comprises five dimensions: counterparty, payload, interaction state, discovery mechanism, and schema flexibility. Classification reveals recurring architectural patterns: all sampled agent-to-agent protocols combine hybrid payloads with session-state persistence; most protocols support multiple predefined schemas, and two negotiate schemas at runtime, indicating a trend toward schema flexibility; decentralized discovery remains rare. Analysis suggests short-term convergence pressure toward protocols unifying agent-to-agent and agent-to-context (tool and data) communication. Long-term, however, no single protocol is likely to maximize versatility, efficiency, and portability simultaneously. The field will more likely evolve toward a federated, layered protocol stack. The framework guides protocol selection and highlights open research gaps such as privacy and policy enforcement.}

Multi-agent systems built on large language models (LLMs) have become a prevailing paradigm for tackling complex reasoning, planning, and tool-use tasks. The dominant communication protocol in such systems is natural language: agents exchange messages token-by-token, verbalising their internal reasoning so that peers can read, verify, and respond. While convenient and interpretable, this protocol suffers from three structural drawbacks -- high inference cost, irreversible information loss during discretization, and ambiguity/redundancy of natural language. A growing body of work therefore explores an alternative protocol -- latent communication -- in which agents exchange continuous representations (embeddings, hidden states, or KV-caches) directly, bypassing the bottleneck of text generation. This paper presents a unified framework for organising the rapidly expanding literature on latent communication. We analyse existing methods along three orthogonal axes: (1) WHAT information is communicated (Embeddings, Hidden States, KV-Caches, or other continuous state); (2) WHICH sender-receiver alignment is used (latent-space alignment and layer alignment); and (3) HOW the communicated information is fused into the receiver (concatenation, prepending, mathematical operations, cross-attention, or cache restoration). Under this 3-axis framework, we systematically categorise eighteen representative methods proposed between 2024 and 2026, identify five major design patterns, and surface a set of open challenges -- including cross-architecture alignment, security of latent channels, compression for edge deployment, and the relationship between latent communication and latent chain-of-thought. We hope that this framework both lowers the barrier to entry for new researchers and provides a vocabulary for comparing future work.

Context. The problem of comparative evaluation of communication protocols for task orchestration by large language model (LLM) agents is considered. The object of study is the process of interaction between LLM agents and external tools, as well as between autonomous LLM agents, during task orchestration. Objective. The goal of this work is to develop a systematic pilot benchmark comparing tool integration, multi-agent dele-gation, and hybrid architectures for standardized queries at three levels of complexity, and to quantify the advantages and disadvantages in terms of response time, context window consumption, cost, error recovery, and implementation complexity.