Are all events in a conversation taken into account when the agent has the “no control” setting?

[wild dock]

This feature was added in the last update, and it works when the LLM is managing devices.
https://rc.home-assistant.io/blog/2025/02/05/release-20252/#shared-history-between-the-default-conversation-agent-and-its-llm-based-fallback

But when I test only the conversational functionality, it seems that LLM ignores all intermediate events that use the built-in handler. And it can't answer what the previous actions were.
Pipeline and conversation_id have identical values for both cases.
Is there such a feature in the current implementation?

[hearty valve]

if the LLM has no control I wouldn't think they would send the local intent handling to it, as there'd be no reason to. No Control means the LLM isn't given any information about your Home

[wild dock]

Information about the house can be obtained with the correct promt in any mode. But this is not relevant to my question.
Here are two examples:
-I ask the LLM any question and get an answer.
-I ask the LLM about a previous request. The LLM answers correctly.

-I ask the LLM any question and get an answer.
-I ask for a built-in action (e.g. turn on a lamp/ weather forecast)
-I ask the LLM about a previous request. The LLM ignores the action and tells me about the original request.

It looks like the claimed functionality (Shared history) is missing.

[boreal quest]

How do you ask to turn on a lamp if the agent has no control?

[wild dock]

Check out the information at the link from the first post. This functionality was added in December.

[boreal quest]

🙂 that was not my question. I am well aware of what you mean.
My question is how do you invoke the built-in action using a LLM agent that has no control?

[wild dock]

Then I don't understand what your question is about (LLM answers the questions, HassIL handles the build-in actions)
My original question refers to this sentence from the blog.
“Starting with this release, both agents now share the same command history, helping address this issue.”

I wanted to clarify that only commands are shared and only when the LLM has control mode selected.

[grim timber]

Built-in intent is handled when you have "prefer local control", with Hassil. LLM still doesn't have any info about HA instance.

[grim timber]

For your question - i don't think LLM is informed about any actions that were done locally. Thus, it has only its own conversation context window.

So your local request never gets to LLM context

[boreal quest]

Hm, i thought they need to both be on (i.e. Assist control and Prefer handling locally) 🤔 I'll have to look deeper into this, it seems

[boreal quest]

Yeah, but that was what the question was about, though. So if it does work as you say, not sharing context is a bug

[grim timber]

Why? LLM doesn't have any info about HA. So it shouldn't have any info about locally processed data.

[grim timber]

Nope, you don't need both. I have "no control" and "prefer local" and use it flawlessly 🙂

[boreal quest]

Maybe, but that's not what the ad says 😋

[grim timber]

Why? There's "NO CONTROL" radio button. That's cool thing that defines LLM logic.

I think they could name "prefer local" better, like "try inbuilt processing first" or something like that.

But for me it's just replacing "fallback conversation" integration, when you had local Hassil and on error - LLM

[boreal quest]

(Reading back)[https://www.home-assistant.io/blog/2025/02/05/release-20252/#shared-history-between-the-default-conversation-agent-and-its-llm-based-fallback] it does say "share the same command history", not "chat history", so maybe it works as intended

[wild dock]

In the future, I would like to see internal reports that are embedded in the conversation. But I understand the complexity of the implementation. It should be a mix of current responses for the user and internal information about device status changes.
This is more about “chatting with your house” than solving practical problems.
And perhaps in the near future we will completely switch to LLM control, then the problem will disappear.

[grim timber]

Exactly

[hearty valve]

Pretty sure the shared history is sharing what happened locally in terms of control with the llm if it has control enabled. If not, that info isn't shared. So asking for a local action without llm set to allow control results in the llm having no knowledge of it, the two remain separate. If you watch the release video they do an example of it.