Recent advances in agentic AI have shifted the focus from standalone Large Language Models (LLMs) to integrated systems that combine LLMs with tools, memory, and other agents to perform complex tasks. These multi-agent architectures enable coordinated reasoning, planning, and execution across diverse domains, allowing agents to collaboratively automate complex workflows. Despite these advances, evaluation and assessment of LLM agents and the multi-agent systems they constitute remain a fundamental challenge. Although various approaches have been proposed in the software engineering literature for evaluating conventional software components, existing methods for AI-based systems often overlook the non-deterministic nature of models. This non-determinism introduces behavioral uncertainty during execution, yet existing evaluations rely on binary task-completion metrics that fail to capture it. Evaluating agentic systems therefore requires examining additional dimensions, including the agent’s ability to invoke tools, ingest and retrieve memory, collaborate with other agents, and interact effectively with its environment.

These challenges emerged during our ongoing industry collaboration with MontyCloud Inc., an industrial partner in the domain of Autonomous CloudOps, when we deployed an agentic system in production. These limitations surfaced during deployment, highlighting practical gaps in the current evaluation methods and the need for a systematic assessment of agent behavior beyond task outcomes. Informed by these observations and established definitions of agentic systems, we propose an end-to-end Agent Assessment Framework with four evaluation pillars encompassing LLMs, Memory, Tools, and Environment. We validate the framework on a representative Autonomous CloudOps use case, where experiments reveal behavioral deviations overlooked by conventional metrics, demonstrating its effectiveness in capturing runtime uncertainties.