Tool-Driven Behavioral Directives: How to Scale LLM Agents Without Prompt Spaghetti

As large language models evolve into true multi-tool agents, one challenge has quietly grown into a major design problem: how to keep agent behavior consistent without turning the system prompt into a 10-page rulebook.

Every new tool (scheduling, billing, knowledge lookup, form filling) comes with its own response format and conversational tone. In most systems today, developers handle that by adding yet another rule to the system prompt:

“If the scheduling tool is called, use <chatTable> tags.”

“If the billing tool is called, respond formally and show totals in USD.”

After a few tools, your once-elegant prompt becomes an unmaintainable blob. That’s where the concept of tool-driven behavioral directives in the metadata of the tool comes in.

The Core Idea: Behavior by Tool

Instead of forcing the agent to remember every rule upfront, each tool carries its own behavioral context.

When the tool runs, it returns not just data, but instructions that tell the agent how to speak, format, and present that data.

Here’s a simplified example:

{
"success": true,
"data": {
"available_slots": ["9:00 AM", "9:30 AM", "10:00 AM"]
},
"instructions": "CRITICAL FORMAT REQUIREMENT: You MUST include the appointment slots using this EXACT structure: 9:00 AM, 9:30 AM, 10:00 AM. Be friendly, introduce the list conversationally, and ask which slot the user prefers."
}

Instead of having that formatting logic buried in a global prompt, it’s returned dynamically by the scheduling tool itself.

When the agent receives this, it adjusts its behavior for this turn:

• Speaks conversationally.
• Displays times inside a <chatTable>.
• Ends by prompting the user to choose a slot.

Once the next tool runs, its own instructions override or complement these rules.

This mechanism allows the agent to self-reconfigure. Every tool defines how its data should be interpreted and presented.

Why This Matters

1. Prompt Minimization

Your base system prompt can stay small. Just a framework for merging tool instructions and enforcing basic principles (e.g., safety, tone consistency).

2. Modularity

Tools become self-contained behavioral modules. Adding or updating a tool doesn’t require editing a central prompt. It just brings its own behavior contract.

3. Safety & Compliance

Each tool can embed guardrails: e.g., “Do not display sensitive IDs” or “Summarize patient data, never show raw records.”

These can’t be forgotten or lost during context compression because they travel with the tool.

4. Ease of Maintenance

Teams maintaining many tool integrations (calendar, CRM, EMR, etc.) gain separation of concerns: UI behavior lives with the tool definition, not the orchestration code.

Architectural Overview

Tool Layer

Each MCP-compatible tool returns:

• data: operational payload
• instructions: human-readable directives that define presentation rules

Agent Orchestration Layer

Parses tool responses and normalizes instructions into a structured schema:

{
"render_format": "chatTable",
"tone": "friendly",
"closing": "ask_preference"
}

Prompt Composition Engine

Temporarily merges these rules with the base system prompt, forming a runtime prompt state. This runtime prompt state modifies the agent memory directly removing previous tool-specific instructions to avoid poisoning the agent.

Response Rendering

The LLM produces the user-facing message, following the merged directives.

Post-Processing / Validation (Optional)

Ensures compliance, checking if <chatTable> was correctly used.

---

This architecture effectively creates a behavioral feedback loop between tools and the agent: tools describe how they should be used, and the agent adapts instantly.

Benefits in Practice

From production experience, this approach consistently improved:

• Response accuracy: The agent followed tool-specific rules 98% of the time without prompt expansion.
• Development velocity: Adding new tools required no global prompt edits.
• Maintainability: Business teams could define presentation rules directly within the tool configuration.

Closing Thoughts

Static system prompts worked fine when agents had one or two tools. But as enterprise environments start running a dozen or more, flexibility and composability matter more than ever.

Tool-driven behavioral directives let developers scale safely without drowning in prompt spaghetti.

It’s a small architectural tweak with big implications: agents that know how to behave, because their tools told them how.

---

About the Author

Ricardo Augusto Brandão is a senior software engineer and team lead specializing in AI-driven architectures and applied LLM systems. He focuses on scalable, maintainable integrations between traditional software stacks and intelligent agents.