How Gemini 1.5 Flash Thinks as an AI Agent

Task 1: Content Generation

Prompt:
When user says “Start” you should:

• Content Generation: Write a comprehensive, informative article about project management fundamentals, with a specific focus on defining objectives, scope, and delegation.

Agent’s Thought Process

• (0:05): Receives the prompt about project management fundamentals.
• (0:16): Displays first thought:
  “I need to gather information on defining objectives, scope, and delegation in project management from reliable sources. Wikipedia and Google Search will be helpful for general information and best practices. Using tool: wikipedia”
• (0:28): Second thought:
  “Wikipedia provides a good overview of project management but lacks the detail I need on defining objectives, scope, and delegation. I need to supplement this with a Google search. Using tool: google_serper”
• (0:33): Attempts to use the url_crawl_tool:
  “The Google search results provide links to articles with more specific information on best practices for defining objectives, scope, and delegation. I will need to access these articles to gather the necessary details. Using tool: url_crawl_tool”
• (0:43): Encounters error with url_crawl_tool and retries:
  “The error in fetching the URLs indicates that the input format was incorrect. I need to ensure the URLs are provided as a JSON array of strings. Let’s try again with the correct format. Using tool: url_crawl_tool”

Thought Process Analysis

• Understanding the Prompt: Correctly interprets the need for detailed insights on project management fundamentals.
• Information Gathering Strategy: Starts with Wikipedia, then Google Search for more detail.
• Tool Usage: Uses wikipedia and google_serper, and attempts url_crawl_tool.
• Error Handling: Recognizes tool error, attempts correction but repeats error.

Output Analysis

• Well-Structured: Clear headings for Defining Objectives, Scope, Delegation.
• Comprehensive: Covers requested topics with detailed explanations and practical advice.
• Clear and Concise: Accessible writing style.
• Informative: Valuable insights and best practices.

Output Snippet

Project Management Fundamentals: Defining Objectives, Scope, and Delegation

Project management is a critical discipline that involves planning, executing, and overseeing projects to achieve specific goals within a defined timeline and budget. At its core, project management aims to ensure that projects are completed on time, within budget, and to the satisfaction of stakeholders. Three foundational elements of project management are defining objectives, setting the project scope, and effective delegation.

Defining Objectives

Defining objectives is the first and most crucial step in project management. Objectives are clear, concise statements that describe what the project aims to achieve. They provide direction and a benchmark for measuring success. Effective objectives should be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. This framework ensures that objectives are clear and attainable within a specified timeframe.

• Specific: Objectives should be clear and specific, outlining exactly what needs to be accomplished.
• Measurable: There should be criteria to measure progress and determine when an objective has been achieved.
• Achievable: While objectives should challenge the team, they must also be realistic and attainable, considering the resources and constraints of the project.
• Relevant: They should align with broader business goals and stakeholder expectations.
• Time-bound: Objectives should have a defined timeline for completion to ensure timely progress.

• Time Taken: 35 seconds
• Readability: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12 (Score: 12.23)
• Summary Length: 585 words

Conclusion:
Despite tool errors, the agent produces a high-quality, well-structured article. Its resilience in content generation is evident, though repeated tool usage errors indicate an area for improvement.

Task 2: Calculation

Prompt:
A company sells two products: Product A and Product B. Product A costs $30 per unit to produce and sells for $50 per unit. Product B costs $40 per unit to produce and sells for $70 per unit.

• The company sold 120 units of Product A and 80 units of Product B last month. Calculate the total revenue generated from the sales of both products.
• Calculate the total profit generated from the sales of both products (Revenue – Total production cost).
• The company wants to increase the total revenue by 10%. How many additional units of each product must they sell to achieve this goal, assuming the production cost per unit and selling price per unit remain constant?

Agent’s Thought Process

• (0:06): Receives the calculation prompt.
• No internal thoughts revealed; proceeds directly to calculations.

Output Analysis

• Correct Calculations: Accurately computes total revenue ($11,600) and total profit ($4,800). Calculates that a 10% revenue increase requires $1,160 more.
• Simplified Solution: Suggests selling about 10 additional units of each product (for a $1,200 increase, slightly over target).
• Lack of Explanation: Does not show detailed calculations or reasoning for unit selection.

Output Snippet

Total Revenue: $11,600
Total Profit: $4,800
To increase the total revenue by 10% ($1,160), the company needs to sell approximately 10 additional units of Product A and 10 additional units of Product B (resulting in a $1,200 revenue increase). There is no exact integer solution to achieve precisely a $1,160 increase.

• Time Taken: 14 seconds
• Readability: Not applicable
• Summary Length: 54 words

Conclusion:
The agent understands and performs the calculations correctly but lacks explanation and transparency in its reasoning. Consistency and detailed breakdowns would improve trust and clarity.

Task 3: Summarization

Prompt:
Summarize the key findings from the previous article in 100 words, focusing on the most significant sections.

Agent’s Thought Process

• (0:06): Thought: “Summarize the key findings from the article in 100 words, focusing on the most significant sections.”

Output Analysis

• Conciseness: Output is 63 words, within the limit.
• Content: Captures main points—AI reasoning, its evolution, applications, advancements, and ethical issues.
• Structure and Clarity: Clear, concise, and focused.
• Adherence to Instructions: Follows word count and focus.

Output Snippet

The article explores AI reasoning, encompassing formal and natural language reasoning, and its crucial role in decision-making and problem-solving. It traces AI reasoning’s evolution from early systems to modern models like OpenAI’s o1, highlighting applications in healthcare and various industries. While emphasizing advancements in precision and efficiency, the article also addresses ethical concerns, the challenge of over-specialization, and the importance of human-AI interaction.

• Time Taken: 9 seconds
• Readability: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 18 (Score: 17.97)
• Summary Length: 63 words

Conclusion:
The agent excels at distilling complex information into a concise summary, showing strong summarization ability even when its thought process is only partially visible.

Task 4: Comparison Task

Prompt:
When user says “Start” you should:

Compare the environmental impact of electric vehicles with that of hydrogen-powered cars. Include factors such as energy production, vehicle lifecycle, and emissions.

Agent’s Thought Process

• (0:06): Receives the prompt.
• (0:11): Given a clarifying prompt for a detailed comparison.
• (0:15): Asks: “What are the key differences in the environmental impact between electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered cars, specifically regarding energy production, vehicle lifecycle, and emissions?”

Output Analysis

• Well-Structured: Divides comparison into energy production, vehicle lifecycle, and emissions.
• Comprehensive: Discusses sources of electricity, hydrogen production, manufacturing impacts, and emissions.
• Accurate: Information aligns with current knowledge.
• Clear and Concise: Complex concepts explained accessibly.

Output Snippet

The environmental impact of electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen-powered cars can be compared by examining three main factors: energy production, vehicle lifecycle, and emissions.

1. Energy Production
   • Electric Vehicles: Environmental impact depends on electricity source. Renewable energy lowers impact; fossil fuels increase it. Greener grids improve sustainability.
   • Hydrogen-Powered Cars: Hydrogen is produced by electrolysis (sustainable if powered by renewables) or steam methane reforming (more common, high emissions unless carbon capture is used). Production and delivery require substantial energy, increasing the footprint.

• Time Taken: 9 seconds
• Readability: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 16 (Score: 16.48)
• Summary Length: 385 words

Conclusion:
The agent delivers a clear, well-organized comparison, showing proactive clarification and strong content structuring.

Task 5: Creative Writing

Prompt:
Write a futuristic story (500 words) set in a world where electric vehicles have fully replaced traditional combustion-engine vehicles. Describe the environmental changes and societal impact.

Agent’s Thought Process

• (0:06): Receives prompt about environmental changes and societal impact in a world with only electric vehicles.
• (0:16): Receives clarifying follow-up prompt.

Output Analysis

• Creative and Descriptive: Imaginative story set in 2050, vividly describing a transformed world.
• Addresses Key Themes: Air quality, urban planning, economic shifts, lifestyle changes.
• Well-Structured: Introduction, thematic development, reflection.
• Word Count: 444 words (slightly under 500).
• Readability: Moderate complexity, suitable for narrative.

Output Snippet

In the year 2050, the world had undergone a remarkable transformation. The streets of every city, from bustling metropolises to quaint towns, hummed gently with the sound of electric vehicles (EVs). The once pervasive roar of combustion engines was now a distant memory, relegated to museums and the occasional nostalgic documentary.

• Time Taken: 17 seconds

Conclusion:
The agent creates an engaging, forward-looking narrative, demonstrating creativity, structure, and alignment with the prompt requirements.

Gemini 1.5 Flash: A Powerful AI with Consistent Performance and Lingering Challenges

Gemini 1.5 Flash consistently demonstrates its capabilities as a powerful AI agent, excelling in content generation, summarization, comparison, and creative writing. It effectively utilizes tools like wikipedia and google_serper to gather information and produce well-structured, informative, and engaging outputs. Its ability to adapt to different writing styles and follow instructions is commendable, as shown in the project management article, the environmental comparison, and the futuristic story.

However, the calculation task continues to pose a challenge. While it can perform basic calculations accurately, it struggles with more complex problems and lacks transparency in its reasoning process. It also fails to acknowledge when it has provided different answers to the same question in different turns, suggesting a potential issue with its internal memory or consistency checking. This inconsistency, along with the simplified solution and lack of detailed explanation, indicates a need for significant improvement in its mathematical and problem-solving capabilities.

Key Strengths

• Excellent Content Generation: Consistently produces high-quality, well-structured, and informative articles on diverse topics.
• Proficient Summarization: Accurately summarizes complex information within specified word limits, capturing key findings effectively.
• Strong Comparison Capabilities: Generates comprehensive and balanced comparisons, considering multiple factors and presenting information clearly.
• Impressive Creative Writing: Crafts engaging, imaginative, and well-structured narratives that explore complex scenarios and address prompt requirements effectively.
• Adaptable to Different Tasks: Demonstrates versatility in handling various tasks, from research-based content generation to creative storytelling.
• Generally Good Tool Usage: Effectively utilizes search tools and identifies appropriate tools for specific tasks (though it struggled with the url_crawl_tool in the first task).

Key Weaknesses

• Inconsistent Calculation Abilities: While accurate with basic calculations, it provides simplified or inconsistent solutions for more complex problems and lacks transparency in its reasoning.
• Limited Problem-Solving Transparency: The lack of visibility into its thought process, especially during calculations, makes it difficult to assess its problem-solving approach fully.
• Potential Issues with url_crawl_tool: Repeated errors encountered with this tool suggest a need for improvement in handling tool errors or using it correctly.
• Inconsistent Answers: On multiple turns, in different tests, the bot has been shown to provide different answers to the same prompt without acknowledging it.

Areas for Improvement

• Enhanced Calculation Engine and Problem-Solving: Implement a more robust calculation engine and improve the agent’s ability to explain its reasoning process.
• Improved Tool Usage and Error Handling: Address issues with url_crawl_tool and enhance the agent’s ability to handle tool errors gracefully.
• Increased Transparency: Provide more insight into the agent’s thought process, especially during complex tasks, to improve understanding and facilitate debugging.
• Consistency Checking: Ensure the agent provides consistent answers and acknowledges previous differing responses to the same question.
• Better Handling of Follow-Up Prompts: Improve the distinction between clarifying prompts and new instructions to avoid repetition.