arXiv:2608.26130v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Coding agents built on large language models (LLMs), such as Claude Code, Cursor, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, and Aider, receive tool responses that routinely exceed the agent's per-turn token budget. The standard remedy, pagination, is available in every protocol that produced these responses; yet across the corpus of session logs from a public Model Context Protocol middleware we observed no agent-initiated requests for a second chunk. The first chunk is what the agent reads, so we ask how often the gold item (the one the agent needs) is placed first in it: the precision-at-1 rate $p_1$.
In a controlled offline benchmark we treat first-chunk selection as a 0/1 knapsack and compare six value functions on 500 SWE-bench Verified tasks, then test whether $p_1$ matters with a single-turn file-localisation probe on five language models (4,800 LLM calls; not an end-to-end resolve-rate test). Two pre-registered hypotheses did not hold and are our main findings. The central one is negative: raising $p_1$ does not systematically raise downstream accuracy. Per-model deltas stay under three percentage points (p.p.), are not consistently signed, and no model is significant; the agent recovers the gold from anywhere in the chunk, so what reaches its answer is first-chunk inclusion, not the gold's rank within it. The second: adding four file-metadata signals to a keyword scorer hurts $p_1$ by 4.8 p.p. (paired significance test, $p = 0.001$).
A parameter-free keyword scorer does raise $p_1$, from a 24.2% baseline to 35.0% (+10.8 p.p., far beyond chance; $p = 3.9 \times 10^{-8}$), and to 35.8% with a fallback to the tool's native ordering when no keyword matches. But by our central finding this is a rank-1 gain, and rank-1 is the part that does not reach the agent's answer: downstream accuracy does not move.
source & further reading
arxiv.org — original article