Do Agents Need Semantic Metadata? A Comparative Study in Agentic Data Retrieval

Modern retrieval systems, whether lexical or semantic, expose a corpus through a fixed similarity interface that compresses access into a single top-k retrieval step before reasoning. This abstraction is efficient, but for agentic search, it becomes a bottleneck: exact lexical constraints, sparse clue conjunctions, local context checks, and multi-step hypothesis refinement are difficult to implement by calling a conventional off-the-shelf retriever, and evidence filtered out early cannot be recovered by stronger downstream reasoning. Agentic tasks further exacerbate this limitation because they require agents to orchestrate multiple steps, including discovering intermediate entities, combining weak clues, and revising the plan after observing partial evidence. To tackle the limitation, we study direct corpus interaction (DCI), where an agent searches the raw corpus directly with general-purpose terminal tools (e.g., grep, file reads, shell commands, lightweight scripts), without any embedding model, vector index, or retrieval API. This approach requires no offline indexing and adapts naturally to evolving local corpora. Across IR benchmarks and end-to-end agentic search tasks, this simple setup substantially outperforms strong sparse, dense, and reranking baselines on several BRIGHT and BEIR datasets, and attains strong accuracy on BrowseComp-Plus and multi-hop QA without relying on any conventional semantic retriever. Our results indicate that as language agents become stronger, retrieval quality depends not only on reasoning ability but also on the resolution of the interface through which the model interacts with the corpus, with which DCI opens a broader interface-design space for agentic search.

Recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM) agents have enabled complex agentic workflows where models autonomously retrieve information, call tools, and reason over large corpora to complete tasks on behalf of users. Despite the growing adoption of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in agentic search systems, existing literature lacks a systematic comparison of how retrieval strategy choice interacts with agent architecture and tool-calling paradigm. Important practical dimensions, including how tool outputs are presented to the model and how performance changes when searches must cope with more irrelevant surrounding text, remain under-explored in agent loops. This paper reports an empirical study organized into two experiments. Experiment 1 compares grep and vector retrieval on a 116-question sample from LongMemEval, using a custom agent harness (Chronos) and provider-native CLI harnesses (Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI), for both inline tool results and file-based tool results that the model reads separately. Experiment 2 compares grep-only and vector-only retrieval while progressively mixing in additional unrelated conversation history, so that each query is embedded in more distracting material alongside the passages that matter. Across Chronos and the provider CLIs, grep generally yields higher accuracy than vector retrieval in our comparisons in experiment 1; at the same time, overall scores still depend strongly on which harness and tool-calling style is used, even when the underlying conversation data are the same.

Valuable data remains embedded in unstructured sources: web pages, reports, contracts, filings, earnings calls, and PDFs. The big bet in enterprise AI is deploying LLM agents that reason over this data to answer complex questions for every knowledge worker. Agents can do this today, but at prohibitive cost. Each question repeatedly opens large documents to recover scattered evidence, consuming up to a million tokens. However, if the data were already structured, the same question would reduce to a cheap database lookup. For example, on FanOutQA benchmark, reasoning over an ideal pre-structured store is 28X cheaper, and the gap grows to orders of magnitude as questions fan out over more documents. Yet structuring everything in advance is not viable: documents hold vastly more possible structure than any workload will use, and the useful structure and documents are unknown until queries arrive. We propose agentic data cracking, a method that structures unstructured data adaptively and speculatively as a byproduct of reasoning itself. Structuring is adaptive because observed queries decide when it happens and what matters, and speculative because it goes beyond the current question. Whenever the agent opens a document to answer, a cracking sub-agent forks from the already-loaded context at marginal cost and extracts grounded structure likely to serve related future queries. Over time, an increasing share of queries is fully covered by structured data and answered without opening a document, keeping agentic accuracy at close to RAG cost. On FanOutQA, extended with merely one related question per test question, cracking cuts cost by 53% while preserving accuracy. Agentic data cracking is a first step toward next-generation data infrastructure for agentic reasoning over unstructured data: a shared substrate beneath the model where knowledge that reasoning already paid to uncover accumulates.