Large language model agents heavily rely on external memory to support knowledge reuse and complex reasoning tasks. Yet most memory systems store experiences in a single global retrieval pool which can gradually dilute or corrupt stored knowledge. This problem is especially pronounced for small language models (SLMs), which are highly vulnerable to irrelevant context. We introduce CLAG, a CLustering-based AGentic memory framework where an agent actively organizes memory. CLAG employs an SLM-agent driven router to assign each new memory to a semantically coherent cluster. By performing continual evolution within the cluster, it effectively reduces cross-topic interference. During the retrieval phase, CLAG targets a small set of relevant clusters for retrieval, thereby excluding distractors and reducing the search space. Experiments on multiple QA datasets with three SLM backbones show that CLAG consistently improves answer quality and robustness over prior memory systems for agents, remaining lightweight and efficient.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled molecular reasoning for property prediction. However, toxicity arises from complex biological mechanisms beyond chemical structure, necessitating mechanistic reasoning for reliable prediction. Despite its importance, current benchmarks fail to systematically evaluate this capability. LLMs can generate fluent but biologically unfaithful explanations, making it difficult to assess whether predicted toxicities are grounded in valid mechanisms. To bridge this gap, we introduce ToxReason, a benchmark grounded in the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) that evaluates organ-level toxicity reasoning across multiple organs. ToxReason integrates experimental drug–target interaction evidence with toxicity labels, requiring models to infer both toxic outcomes and their underlying mechanisms from Molecular Initiating Event (MIE) to Adverse Outcome (AO). Using ToxReason, we evaluate toxicity prediction performance and reasoning quality across diverse LLMs. We find that strong predictive performance does not necessarily imply reliable reasoning. Furthermore, we show that reasoning-aware training improves mechanistic reasoning and, consequently, toxicity prediction performance. Together, these results underscore the necessity of integrating reasoning into both evaluation and training for trustworthy toxicity modeling.