AI models like Claude Code can experience a decline in output quality as their context window fills. It is recommended to start a new session once the context usage exceeds 50% to avoid this degradation, which can manifest as the model 'forgetting' earlier instructions.

Models that generate "chain-of-thought" text before providing an answer are powerful but slow and computationally expensive. For tuned business workflows, the latency from waiting for these extra reasoning tokens is a major, often overlooked, drawback that impacts user experience and increases costs.

Progress in complex, long-running agentic tasks is better measured by tokens consumed rather than raw time. Improving token efficiency, as seen from GPT-5 to 5.1, directly enables more tool calls and actions within a feasible operational budget, unlocking greater capabilities.

Classifying a model as "reasoning" based on a chain-of-thought step is no longer useful. With massive differences in token efficiency, a so-called "reasoning" model can be faster and cheaper than a "non-reasoning" one for a given task. The focus is shifting to a continuous spectrum of capability versus overall cost.

Anthropic suggests that LLMs, trained on text about AI, respond to field-specific terms. Using phrases like 'Think step by step' or 'Critique your own response' acts as a cheat code, activating more sophisticated, accurate, and self-correcting operational modes in the model.

Many AI tools expose the model's reasoning before generating an answer. Reading this internal monologue is a powerful debugging technique. It reveals how the AI is interpreting your instructions, allowing you to quickly identify misunderstandings and improve the clarity of your prompts for better results.

Achieve higher-quality results by using an AI to first generate an outline or plan. Then, refine that plan with follow-up prompts before asking for the final execution. This course-corrects early and avoids wasted time on flawed one-shot outputs, ultimately saving time.

Benchmarking reasoning models revealed no clear correlation between the level of reasoning and an LLM's performance. In fact, even when there is a slight accuracy gain (1-2%), it often comes with a significant cost increase, making it an inefficient trade-off.

To explain the LLM 'temperature' parameter, imagine a claw machine. A low temperature (zero) is a sharp, icy peak where the claw deterministically grabs the top token. A high temperature melts the peak, allowing the claw to grab more creative, varied tokens from a wider, flatter area.