A multi-agent system splits one user request across an orchestrator and several specialist agents, each with its own context window and tools. The orchestrator turns an input into a set of subtasks, routes each to a worker, and combines the local results into a final output Arize's orchestrator-worker deep dive. That is exactly why a failure is hard to place: the wrong answer may come from a bad subtask split, a hallucinated worker result, a dropped tool response, or a synthesis step that merged the wrong pieces.
Anthropic's engineering writeup on its research system makes the cost and behavior concrete: the multi-agent configuration beat a single-agent baseline by 90.2 percent on an internal research eval, but used about 15 times the tokens of a chat interaction, and token usage alone explained 80 percent of performance variance on the BrowseComp benchmark Anthropic's multi-agent research system. When a run burns that much budget and still fails, "look at the logs" is not enough. You need a per-hop record.
The failure signature in a tracing backend is easy to recognize. Look for root spans with no parent that appear mid-sequence, trace ID discontinuities between the gateway and a downstream agent, tool call spans that are roots instead of children of an LLM span, and timing gaps with no span explaining the gap TianPan on tracing across agent boundaries. Each of those symptoms means one delegation boundary lost its context.



