Agentic language model (LM) systems power modern applications like "Deep Research" and "Claude Code," and leverage multi-LM architectures to overcome context limitations. Beneath their apparent diversity lies a recurring pattern: smaller "compressor" LMs (that can even run locally) distill raw context into compact text that is then consumed by larger "predictor" LMs. Despite their popularity, the design of compressor-predictor systems remains largely ad hoc, with little guidance on how compressor and predictor choices shape downstream performance. In practice, attributing gains to compression versus prediction requires costly, task-specific pairwise sweeps. We argue that these agentic system design questions are, at root, information-theoretic. Viewing the compressor LM as a noisy channel, we introduce a simple estimator of mutual information between the context and its compression to quantify compression quality in a task-independent way. We show that mutual information strongly predicts downstream performance, independent of any specific task. Through an information-theoretic framework, we perform a comprehensive empirical analysis across five datasets and three model families. Results reveal that larger compressors not only are more accurate, but also more token-efficient, conveying more bits of information per token. A 7B Qwen-2.5 compressor, for instance, is $1.6\times$ more accurate, $4.6\times$ more concise, and conveys $5.5\times$ more bits of mutual information per token than its 1.5B sibling. Across datasets, scaling compressors is substantially more effective than scaling predictors, enabling larger on-device compressors to pair with smaller cloud predictors. Applied to a Deep Research system, these principles enable local compressors as small as 3B parameters to recover $99\%$ of frontier-LM accuracy at $26\%$ of API costs.