Is Grep All You Need? How Agent Harnesses Reshape Agentic Search

TL;DR

This study empirically compares grep and vector retrieval methods in LLM agent workflows, examining how retrieval strategies and tool presentation affect accuracy amid distracting information.

Contribution

It provides a systematic comparison of retrieval strategies and tool-calling paradigms in agentic search, highlighting their impact on performance and accuracy.

Findings

Grep generally outperforms vector retrieval in accuracy.

Performance varies significantly with agent architecture and tool-calling style.

Distracting conversation history affects retrieval effectiveness.

Abstract

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.