ToolFailBench: Diagnosing Tool-Use Failures in LLM Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.04686v1
• Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 05:25:21 GMT
• Title: ToolFailBench: Diagnosing Tool-Use Failures in LLM Agents
• Abstract summary: ToolFailBench is a diagnostic benchmark for measuring tool-use failures.<n>We label each trace with Tool-Skip, Result-Ignore, Output-Fabrication, and Unnecessary-Tool-Use.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Tool calling is central to modern language model agents, but aggregate benchmark scores often hide where tool use fails. A model that never calls a needed tool and a model that calls the tool but ignores the result can look similar under final task accuracy. We introduce ToolFailBench, a diagnostic benchmark for measuring tool-use failures across 1,000 tasks in finance, medicine, law, cybersecurity, and real estate. Tool-required tasks return values the model wouldn't guess, forcing it to trust the tool while control tasks attach the same tools but should be answered directly. We label each trace with Tool-Skip, Result-Ignore, Output-Fabrication, and Unnecessary-Tool-Use, using a rule classifier and two LLM judges aggregated by majority vote. Across 19 headline models, the best reaches 86.33% Clean Tool-Use Rate, showing that faithful tool use is not saturated. More importantly, models with similar aggregate scores fail in different ways: most stay disciplined on no-tool controls, while Llama-3.1 models show an Always-Call pattern, and at the same parameter scale Llama-3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-72B differ by 89 percentage points on control-task accuracy. Tool-use evaluation should measure not only whether agents call tools, but whether they use tool outputs correctly and avoid tools when none is needed.

Related papers

• Joint Optimization of Tool Creation and Use for Large Language Model Agents [69.07066297088187]
  SMITH (-grounded Multi-task Iterative Tool Honing) trains tool creation and tool use inside a single policy.<n>A 4B Qwen3 trained with SMITH on 13 procedural reasoning tasks with exact verifiers reaches 79.8 macro-average accuracy on held-out tasks.<n>It also reaches 40.4 on TabMWP-Hard and 42.6 on out-of-domain GQA (+7.6 over the best same-backbone inference-time baseline)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T13:59:34Z)
• ToolRobustBench: Stage-Wise Perturbation Evaluation and Failure Diagnosis for Tool-Calling Agents [16.995082216096787]
  Large language models rely on tool calling as a fundamental agent capability.<n>Clean end-to-end (E2E) success cannot identify where a tool-use failure originates or how it propagates through a call.<n>We introduce ToolRobustBench, a stage-wise diagnostic benchmark for tool-calling agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T15:22:49Z)
• HyperTool: Beyond Step-Wise Tool Calls for Tool-Augmented Agents [52.33697136670754]
  We introduce textbfHyperTool, a unified executable MCP-style tool interface that changes the model-visible unit of tool execution.<n>A model invokes HyperTool with a code block that can call existing tools through their original schemas, manipulate returned values, and pass intermediate results locally.<n>On MCP-Universe, HyperTool improves average accuracy from 15.69% to 35.29% on Qwen3-32B and from 9.93% to 33.33% on Qwen3-8B, and surpass GPT-OSS and Kimi-k2.5 on average
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:56:36Z)
• Do Multimodal Agents Really Benefit from Tool Use? A Systematic Study of Capability Gains [20.11899219087138]
  We study two representative thinking with images'' agents, Thyme and DeepEyesV2, across real-world understanding, OCR, chart understanding, and mathematical reasoning.<n>We find that tool access yields little consistent aggregate improvement, does not reliably reduce generated-token cost, and leaves only a small tool-only solved set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T15:04:25Z)
• Model-Adaptive Tool Necessity Reveals the Knowing-Doing Gap in LLM Tool Use [47.29360932085394]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as autonomous agents that must decide when to answer directly vs. when to invoke external tools.<n>We introduce a model-adaptive definition of tool-necessity, grounded in each model's empirical performance.<n>We find substantial mismatches of 26.5-54.0% and 30.8-41.8%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T18:59:28Z)
• When to Trust Tools? Adaptive Tool Trust Calibration For Tool-Integrated Math Reasoning [58.75883713573783]
  Tool-Integrated Reasoning has emerged as a promising paradigm that incorporates tool call and execution within the reasoning trajectory.<n>We find that when the reasoning of the model conflicts with the tool results, the model tends to believe in its own reasoning.<n>We introduce Adaptive Tool Trust (ATTC), a framework that guides the model to adaptively choose to trust or ignore the tool results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T14:14:37Z)
• ToolMATH: A Math Tool Benchmark for Realistic Long-Horizon Multi-Tool Reasoning [11.99927786717109]
  ToolMATH turns math problems into a controlled, correctness-checkable benchmark with tool sets.<n>ToolMATH provides actionable diagnostic evidence of failure modes in tool-augmented agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T09:23:12Z)
• AdaReasoner: Dynamic Tool Orchestration for Iterative Visual Reasoning [66.24374176797075]
  We introduce textbfAdaReasoner, a family of multimodal models that learn tool use as a general reasoning skill rather than as tool-specific or explicitly supervised behavior.<n>AdaReasoner is enabled by (i) a scalable data curation pipeline exposing models to long-horizon, multi-step tool interactions; (ii) Tool-GRPO, a reinforcement learning algorithm that prioritizes tool selection and sequencing based on end-task success; and (iii) an adaptive learning mechanism that dynamically regulates tool usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T16:04:43Z)
• TRAJECT-Bench:A Trajectory-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Tool Use [74.47746287181383]
  Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly rely on tool use to complete real-world tasks.<n>We introduce TRAJECT-Bench, a trajectory-aware benchmark to comprehensively evaluate LLMs' tool use capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T07:30:25Z)
• Chain-of-Tools: Utilizing Massive Unseen Tools in the CoT Reasoning of Frozen Language Models [8.573278807410507]
  Tool learning can further broaden the usage scenarios of large language models (LLMs)<n>We present a new Tool Learning method Chain-of-Tools.<n>It makes full use of the powerful semantic representation capability of frozen LLMs to finish tool calling in CoT reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T01:26:12Z)
• Large Language Models as Tool Makers [85.00361145117293]
  We introduce a closed-loop framework, referred to as LLMs A s Tool Makers (LATM), where LLMs create their own reusable tools for problem-solving. Our approach consists of two phases: 1) tool making: an LLM acts as the tool maker that crafts tools for a set of tasks. 2) tool using: another LLM acts as the tool user, which applies the tool built by the tool maker for problem-solving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T17:50:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.