Understanding LLM Context Windows: A Developer's Practical Guide

If you’re a developer using LLMs — whether through an API, a coding assistant, or a chat interface — the context window is probably the single most important concept to understand. It’s also the one that’s most commonly misunderstood.

I spent my first few months using LLMs thinking “bigger context window = better” and not understanding why my results degraded on long conversations. Here’s the practical guide I wish I’d had.

What a Context Window Actually Is

The context window is the total number of tokens an LLM can process in a single interaction. This includes everything: the system prompt, the conversation history, your current input, and the model’s output. It’s not just “how much text you can send” — it’s the entire working memory of the model for that request.

Think of it like a whiteboard. Everything the model needs to reference — instructions, prior conversation, code, documents — has to fit on that whiteboard. When the whiteboard fills up, old content gets erased (or truncated, depending on the implementation).

Current context window sizes as of late 2025:

These numbers look enormous. The catch — and this is the part people miss — is that “fits in the context window” and “the model can effectively use it” are very different things.

The “Lost in the Middle” Problem

There’s a well-documented phenomenon where LLMs perform significantly worse at retrieving and reasoning about information that’s in the middle of their context window compared to information at the beginning or end. This was formally described in a 2023 paper by Liu et al., and it’s still relevant despite model improvements.

I ran into this firsthand when I tried to feed an entire codebase (~45K tokens) into Claude and asked it to find a specific bug. The bug was in a file that ended up roughly in the middle of the context. The model found it about 40% of the time. When I restructured the prompt to put the relevant file at the end, the success rate jumped to something like 85%.

This has practical implications:

• Put the most important information at the beginning or end of your prompt
• Don’t assume that “more context = better results” — sometimes trimming irrelevant context actually improves performance
• If you’re building a RAG pipeline, the order of retrieved chunks matters more than you’d think

Tokens Are Not Characters

This trips up almost every developer the first time. Tokens are the model’s unit of text, and they don’t map 1:1 to characters, words, or lines of code.

Rough rules of thumb:

• English text: ~1 token per 4 characters, or ~1 token per 0.75 words
• Code: more tokens per line than prose (special characters, variable names)
• Non-English text: significantly more tokens per word (Chinese/Japanese can be 2-3x)
• JSON/XML: very token-hungry because of all the structural characters

Here’s a concrete example that caught me off guard:

# This innocent-looking JSON payload...
{
    "user_id": "abc123",
    "events": [
        {"type": "click", "timestamp": "2025-11-28T10:30:00Z", "element": "button-submit"},
        {"type": "view", "timestamp": "2025-11-28T10:30:01Z", "page": "/checkout"}
    ]
}
# ...is about 65 tokens with GPT-4's tokenizer

# The same data as a compact string...
"abc123|click,2025-11-28T10:30:00Z,button-submit|view,2025-11-28T10:30:01Z,/checkout"
# ...is about 35 tokens

When you’re building applications that process lots of structured data through an LLM, the format matters. I’ve seen teams blow through their context window (and their API budget) just because they were sending verbose JSON when a compact format would have worked fine.

Counting Tokens in Practice

Every major model provider has a tokenizer you can use:

# OpenAI
import tiktoken
enc = tiktoken.encoding_for_model("gpt-4")
token_count = len(enc.encode("your text here"))

# For Claude, use Anthropic's token counting API
# or approximate: character_count / 3.5

# For local models using Hugging Face tokenizers
from transformers import AutoTokenizer
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("meta-llama/Llama-3.1-8B")
token_count = len(tokenizer.encode("your text here"))

I’d recommend always counting tokens before making API calls in production code. It saves you from both surprise truncation and surprise bills.

Context Window Management Strategies

Here’s where the practical stuff lives. These are the patterns I use day-to-day.

Strategy 1: Sliding Window with Summary

For long conversations or iterative coding sessions, I maintain a rolling summary of earlier context:

This lets you maintain hours-long debugging sessions without losing the thread. The summary takes maybe 200-300 tokens instead of the 5,000-10,000 tokens the full conversation would need.

The downside: you lose nuance. If the solution depends on something specific from 20 messages ago that the summary glossed over, you’re stuck. I’ve learned to write fairly detailed summaries to mitigate this.

Strategy 2: Focused Context Loading

Instead of dumping entire files into the context, I load only what’s relevant:

# Bad: "Here's my entire codebase, find the bug"
find src/ -name "*.py" -exec cat {} \; | wc -c
# 847,293 characters ≈ 242,000 tokens — won't even fit in most models

# Better: "Here's the specific module and its dependencies"
cat src/pipeline/consumer.py src/pipeline/parser.py src/models/event.py | wc -c  
# 12,847 characters ≈ 3,671 tokens — plenty of room for conversation

This seems obvious, but I see developers (including myself, early on) default to “give the model everything” when “give the model the right things” is almost always better.

Strategy 3: Structured Prompts for Complex Tasks

When I need the model to do something complex with a lot of code, I structure the prompt to front-load the most important information:

The ordering matters. The model pays the most attention to the beginning and end of the prompt. By putting the task and constraints first, you ensure they don’t get “lost in the middle” even if the code section is long.

Strategy 4: Multi-Turn Decomposition

For tasks that exceed the context window, break them into sequential steps:

Each turn builds on the summary from the previous one. You lose some detail at each step (this is an inherent compression problem), but you can process much larger codebases than the context window would otherwise allow.

Common Mistakes I’ve Made

Mistake 1: Trusting Long-Context Benchmarks

A model that scores well on “needle in a haystack” benchmarks (finding a specific fact in a large context) isn’t necessarily good at reasoning over large contexts. Retrieval and reasoning are different skills. I’ve had models perfectly retrieve a function definition from a 100K-token context but fail to correctly analyze how that function interacts with another function 50K tokens away.

Mistake 2: Not Accounting for Output Tokens

If you have a 128K context window and your input is 127K tokens, the model only has 1K tokens for its response. I’ve run into this when feeding large code files and getting truncated or incoherent responses — not because the model was confused, but because it literally ran out of room to respond.

Rule of thumb: leave at least 20% of the context window for the output. For code generation tasks, I leave 30-40%.

Mistake 3: Ignoring Cost Implications

Context window usage directly impacts cost:

# Rough cost comparison (Nov 2025 prices, varies by provider)
# Processing 100K tokens of input + 4K tokens of output

# GPT-4 Turbo: ~$1.04 per request
# Claude 3.5 Sonnet: ~$0.33 per request  
# Gemini 1.5 Pro: ~$0.13 per request
# Local Llama 3.1 70B: electricity cost only, but ~45 seconds per request

# If you make 50 requests/day, that's:
# GPT-4 Turbo: ~$1,560/month
# Claude 3.5 Sonnet: ~$495/month
# Gemini 1.5 Pro: ~$195/month

These numbers add up. In production, I always implement token budgets — hard limits on how much context each API call can use. It forces you to be deliberate about what you include.

Mistake 4: Not Testing Context Sensitivity

If you’re building an application that depends on information being in the context, test it explicitly. I write tests like:

def test_retrieval_at_different_positions():
    """Ensure the model can find critical info regardless of position."""
    base_context = generate_filler_text(50000)  # tokens
    critical_info = "The maximum retry count is 7."
    
    for position in [0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9]:  # relative position
        context = insert_at_position(base_context, critical_info, position)
        response = call_llm(context + "\nWhat is the maximum retry count?")
        assert "7" in response, f"Failed to retrieve info at position {position}"

You’d be surprised how often these tests fail at certain positions, especially with smaller models.

What’s Coming Next

Context windows are getting larger fast. Gemini already offers 1M tokens, and there’s active research on “infinite” context through techniques like ring attention and memory-augmented architectures. But bigger windows don’t solve the fundamental problem: models still struggle with long-range reasoning.

The more interesting direction, in my opinion, is better use of context — techniques like retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), context caching, and agentic workflows that decompose problems into smaller, focused context windows. These approaches work with the limitations rather than trying to brute-force past them.

For now, the practical advice is: understand your model’s effective context window (which is always smaller than the advertised one), be deliberate about what you put in it, and structure your prompts so that the most important information is in the positions where the model pays the most attention.

You might also like

• Local LLMs vs Cloud APIs: When to Use Which for Development
• Prompt Engineering for Developers: 7 Patterns That Actually Work
• The AI Tools I Actually Use as a Tech Lead (2026 Edition)

📦 Free: AI Code Review Prompt Pack — 10 prompts I use on 15+ PRs/week.

Newsletter: One practical AI workflow per week, plus templates I don’t publish here. Subscribe →