LLMs are General Asynchronous Agents

Function calling, also known as tool use, is a core capability of modern LLM agents but is typically constrained by synchronous execution semantics. Under these semantics, LLM decoding is blocked until each function call completes, resulting in increasing end-to-end latency. In this work, we introduce AsyncFC, a pure execution-layer framework that decouples LLM decoding from function execution, enabling overlap between model decoding and function execution as well as inter-function parallelism when dependencies permit. AsyncFC layers over existing models and unmodified function implementations, requiring no fine-tuning or changes to the standard synchronous function-calling protocol. Across standard function-calling benchmarks and adapted software engineering benchmarks, AsyncFC significantly reduces end-to-end task completion time while preserving task accuracy. Furthermore, these results reveal that LLMs possess a native capability to reason over symbolic futures that represent unresolved execution results, enabling an asynchronous paradigm for model-tool interaction.

Every major LLM agent framework gives the LLM the role of orchestrator; the model decides what to do next, when to call tools, and when to stop. We argue that token explosion, control-flow hallucination, and unreliable completion are not implementation bugs but architectural consequences of assigning the deterministic work of looping, branching, and sequencing to a probabilistic system. A better prompt or a stronger model cannot guarantee the reliability of the LLM agent. We therefore propose Agentic Programming, in which the program governs all control flow, and the LLM is itself part of it, an adaptive component we call LLM-as-Code and invoke only where a task calls for reasoning or generation. Within each call the model keeps full flexibility, but it cannot alter the program's execution path. With control in the program, the LLM's context is built from the execution history's call tree and forms a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Each call's context length is then determined by its call depth rather than by accumulation over steps. A case study of computer-use agents shows that the design is practical, not just a theoretical stance, substantially improving the stability of long visual operation sequences.

Modern language-model agents are built around the agent loop: the LLM is placed in an environment exposing a set of tools, and the LLM has full control over the workflow by alternating between tool calls and observing their output. However, certain capabilities such as long-term memory and self-improvement currently require specialized systems beyond the agent loop itself. We built an LLM agent framework, JAZ, to explore the extent to which a minimal harness that is little more than the agent loop itself can accomplish tasks these specialized systems are built for. JAZ exposes a single LLM-based primitive invoke and provides a set of built-in hooks that allow the programmer to apply constraints and perform monitoring. Generalizing existing code-mode agent loops, invoke is the simplest loop that satisfies two defining properties: (1) the LLM can write arbitrary executable code that can include recursive invoke; (2) everything visible to the LLM - all inputs to invoke as well as its interaction history with the code environment - are variables in the code environment. We motivate our design from first principles, viewing invoke as a language primitive representing a function whose implementation is provided at runtime by an LLM every time it is called. To validate the design of our core invoke primitive, we evaluate invoke - with only prompting, no manually designed tools, harness, or external systems (e.g., memory or the file system) - on workflows traditionally implemented through specialized harnesses. On long-horizon workflows requiring recall far beyond the context window, JAZ invoke outperforms Letta (MemGPT) by 8% at half its cost on the recall-heavy portion of StuLife. On continual self-improvement, JAZ invoke outperforms ACE by 4% at a lower cost on AppWorld.