.png)
LargeLanguage Models have changed how applications understand and generate language.However, on their own, they cannot access real-time data, call APIs, or takeaction in external systems. To overcome these limitations, AI agent frameworkshave emerged.
Two of themost widely used approaches are ReAct agents and function callingagents. Both extend LLM capabilities, but they work in very different ways.
Understandingthe difference is critical when designing AI agents for real-worldapplications.
ReActagents combine reasoning and action into a single continuous loop.Instead of simply generating text, these agents think through a problem, decidewhat action to take, observe the result, and then adjust their reasoning.
Thisapproach allows ReAct agents to handle complex, open-ended tasks where thesteps are not clearly defined upfront.
ReActagents are well suited for scenarios that require exploration, planning, andmulti-step decision making.
ReActagents follow an iterative cycle:
First, theagent receives a task in natural language.
Next, it reasons about the problem and breaksit into steps.
Then, it selects and uses tools such assearch, databases, or internal systems.
After observing the results, it refines itsreasoning and decides the next action.
This loop continues until the task iscompleted.
Byalternating between thinking and acting, ReAct agents adapt dynamically to newinformation.
ReActagents offer several advantages:
▪️ Strongmulti-step reasoning and planning
▪️ Ability tohandle open-ended and ambiguous tasks
▪️ Transparentreasoning that is easier to understand
▪️ Betteradaptability to changing conditions
▪️ Useful forresearch, investigation, and complex problem solving
Thetrade-off is higher computational cost and more careful prompt design.
Function-callingagents take a more structured approach. Instead of deciding actions freely, theLLM selects from a predefined set of functions.
Eachfunction represents a specific action, such as fetching data, updating arecord, or triggering a workflow. The model identifies which function to calland provides the required parameters, while the application executes thefunction.
This makes function-callingagents highly reliable and easier to control.
The processis straightforward:
The userprovides a request.
The LLM determines which function matches thetask.
It outputs structured parameters for thatfunction.
The application executes the function andreturns the result.
The LLM generates a final response using thereturned data.
Thisseparation between decision and execution improves safety and predictability.
Function-callingagents are ideal when actions are well defined:
▪️ Reliableintegration with APIs and databases
▪️ Structured andpredictable behavior
▪️ Easier debuggingand maintenance
▪️ Loweroperational complexity
▪️ Strong fit forautomation and workflows
They areless flexible for tasks that require exploration or reasoning beyond predefinedactions.
The coredifference lies in flexibility versus control.
ReActagents are better for tasks that require reasoning, discovery, and adaptation.
Function calling agents are better for tasksthat require precision, structure, and reliability.
ReActagents decide both what to do and how to do it.
Function calling agents decide whichfunction to use, while execution is handled externally.
ChooseReAct agents if your use case involves:
▪️ Complexreasoning
▪️ Multi-stepproblem solving
▪️ Open-ended tasks
▪️ Research oranalysis workflows
Choosefunction calling agents if your use case involves:
▪️ API integrations
▪️ Business processautomation
▪️ Transactionalworkflows
▪️ High reliabilityand control
In manyreal-world systems, organizations combine both approaches to balanceflexibility and safety.
ReActagents and function-calling agents both play a critical role in modern AIsystems. The right choice depends on your goals, complexity, and risktolerance.