What is an AI Agent?
The word “agent” is quickly becoming the most overused term in go-to-market (GTM) technology.
Every vendor claims to have agents.
Every demo showcases automation.
Every roadmap promises autonomy.
But here’s the reality:
Most of what’s being called an agent isn’t actually an agent.
And for GTM leaders building, buying, or investing in AI, that distinction is not semantic — it’s architectural, operational, and strategic.
If organizations don’t develop a shared taxonomy for AI systems in GTM, expectations get distorted, governance breaks down, and implementation decisions become misaligned with reality.
So let’s define a practical framework.
The AI Stack in GTM: A Practical Taxonomy
A useful way to understand AI maturity in go-to-market environments is to view systems across four levels of capability — from raw intelligence to autonomous decision-making.
Level 0 — Model (Foundation AI)
At the base of the stack sits the model.
This is a raw large language model (LLM) such as GPT or Claude. It predicts tokens, generates text, and performs inference — but it does not possess goals, persistence, or action capability.
Key characteristics:
-
Stateless prediction engine
-
No intrinsic objectives
-
No action execution
-
Requires orchestration to create value
A model is a powerful capability layer — but it is not an agent.
Level 1 — Tool (Passive AI)
Most GTM teams first encounter AI as a tool.
Here, an LLM executes a predefined task within a tightly bounded context. The system performs a function, returns an output, and stops.
Common GTM examples include:
-
Summarizing sales calls
-
Drafting outbound emails
-
Cleaning CRM fields
-
Generating account briefs
-
Creating meeting follow-ups
These tools share a common structure:
-
Fixed instructions
-
No decision-making
-
No branching logic
-
Typically single-step execution
They are enormously valuable productivity accelerators.
But fundamentally, they are AI-powered functions, not autonomous systems.
Level 2 — Workflow (Scripted Automation)
The next layer introduces orchestration.
A workflow connects multiple steps into a predefined control flow, often combining rules engines, integrations, and occasional AI steps.
A typical GTM workflow might look like:
-
Inbound lead arrives
-
Firmographic enrichment occurs
-
Rule-based scoring is applied
-
Lead is routed to an account executive
AI may participate within individual steps — for example, enriching attributes or generating summaries — but the flow itself is predetermined.
The system does not decide what happens next.
It executes a designed playbook.
Workflows deliver operational scale and consistency.
But again, this is not agency.
Level 3 — Agent (Autonomous System)
At Level 3, the paradigm shifts.
An agent introduces autonomy.
Instead of executing steps, it selects actions.
A GTM agent typically exhibits:
-
A defined objective
-
Ability to choose actions
-
Dynamic sequencing of tasks
-
Tool utilization
-
Operation over time
-
State and memory
-
Adaptation to feedback
Examples emerging in GTM environments include:
-
A lead routing system that interprets ambiguous signals and determines ownership dynamically
-
An SDR agent that researches accounts, prioritizes outreach, adapts messaging, and learns from responses
-
A recruiting interviewer that adjusts questioning strategy based on candidate interaction
The defining distinction:
An agent is not executing a script — it is deciding what to do next.
That is autonomy.
The Line That Actually Matters
When evaluating “AI agents” in GTM, one question cuts through the noise:
Does the system decide what to do next?
-
If no → It is a tool or workflow
-
If yes → You are dealing with an agent
This boundary is not philosophical — it determines:
-
System architecture
-
Observability requirements
-
Risk models
-
Trust frameworks
-
Human oversight patterns
-
Pricing expectations
-
Organizational design
Misclassification leads directly to misalignment.
Why This Matters for GTM Leaders
1. Expectation Management
Calling every automation an agent inflates buyer expectations.
If organizations believe they are purchasing autonomous revenue generation but receive scripted automation, credibility deteriorates rapidly.
Precision protects trust.
2. Risk and Governance
Autonomy introduces qualitatively different risk categories:
-
Decision risk
-
Brand risk
-
Customer experience risk
-
Compliance risk
A summarization error is inconvenient.
An autonomous outbound system misrepresenting positioning across thousands of prospects is materially different.
Different category. Different guardrails.
3. Organizational Impact
Tools primarily increase productivity.
Agents reshape responsibility boundaries.
There is a fundamental difference between:
-
“This drafts emails faster.”
-
“This decides which accounts to pursue.”
One augments execution.
The other reallocates judgment.
And judgment is where organizational design evolves.
A Cleaner Way to Talk About AI in GTM
Clarity in language creates clarity in architecture.
Instead of broadly claiming “we’re building agents,” organizations can communicate more precisely:
-
We are building AI tools.
-
We are building AI workflows.
-
We are building autonomous GTM agents.
This specificity improves internal alignment, sets accurate stakeholder expectations, and builds market credibility.
In an environment saturated with AI claims, precision becomes differentiation.
Final Thought
The industry is stretching the term “agent” to mean anything that incorporates an LLM.
That dilution makes the concept operationally meaningless.
Autonomy is the true dividing line.
The future of go-to-market will unquestionably include agents — systems that reason, decide, and act toward revenue objectives over time.
But not everything automated is autonomous.
And the organizations that internalize that distinction will be the ones that build durable systems — rather than impressive demos.
