Beyond the Leaderboard: A Synthesis of Tool-Use, Planning, and Reasoning Failures in Large Language Model Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05775v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 03:05:13 GMT
• Title: Beyond the Leaderboard: A Synthesis of Tool-Use, Planning, and Reasoning Failures in Large Language Model Agents
• Abstract summary: This paper synthesizes 27 benchmark, taxonomy, and audit papers spanning 19 distinct benchmarks.<n>We identify six failure clusters: (1) tool invocation and parameter-level errors, (2) planning and constraint-satisfaction failures, (3) long-horizon degradation from context accumulation, (4) multi-agent coordination failures, (5) safety and security failures under adversarial or underspecified conditions, and (6) measurement validity problems.<n>Across the literature, we find that failures compound nonlinearly with task length, that strong performance on individual sub-tasks does not reliably translate into end-to-end success, and that additional scaffolding does not consistently improve reliability.
• Score: 8.693939236244711
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to use tools, plan multi-step tasks, coordinate with other agents, and operate over extended horizons. Reported benchmark gains often obscure recurring failure modes documented across otherwise unrelated evaluation efforts. This paper synthesizes 27 benchmark, taxonomy, and audit papers (2023-2026), spanning 19 distinct benchmarks, into a cross-cutting taxonomy of agent limitations. To our knowledge, this is the first synthesis that integrates evidence across tool use, planning, long-horizon reasoning, multi-agent coordination, safety, and measurement validity into a single, unified taxonomy of LLM agent limitations. We identify six failure clusters: (1) tool invocation and parameter-level errors, (2) planning and constraint-satisfaction failures, (3) long-horizon degradation from context accumulation, (4) multi-agent coordination failures, (5) safety and security failures under adversarial or underspecified conditions, and (6) measurement validity problems. The taxonomy was derived iteratively by grouping independently reported error categories into themes corresponding to distinct stages of the agent reasoning-to-action pipeline. Across the literature, we find that failures compound nonlinearly with task length, that strong performance on individual sub-tasks does not reliably translate into end-to-end success, and that additional scaffolding does not consistently improve reliability. At the same time, substantial progress has been demonstrated in single-turn tool use, short-horizon web navigation, and narrowly scoped coding tasks.

Related papers

• BLINDSPOT: A Benchmark for Safety and Refusal Calibration in Long-Horizon Tool-Using Agents [20.217145643468598]
  We introduce Blindspot, a benchmark for trajectory-level safety calibration of long-horizon tool-using agents.<n>Blindspot evaluates complete user-agent-environment trajectories through adaptive adversarial interaction, stateful tool execution, and execution-grounded adjudication.<n>We evaluate 13 proprietary and open-weight LLMs using eight metrics covering unsafe completion, appropriate refusal, benign utility, over-refusal, repeated-run robustness, and post-refusal failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T20:12:27Z)
• ScrambleToolBench: Agents Search Exhaustively Even When Their Own Map Points to the Next Step [74.83535434786145]
  We introduce ScrambleToolBench, an interactive terminal benchmark designed to isolate behavioral reasoning.<n>The benchmark requires agents to uncover hidden tool behaviors entirely through trial-and-error interaction.<n>Our evaluation of state-of-the-art language models reveals that successful initial discovery does not translate into robust adaptation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T15:07:46Z)
• TrajAudit: Automated Failure Diagnosis for Agentic Coding Systems [18.833806809109536]
  Agentic systems have been widely studied to automate software engineering jobs such as bug fixing.<n>Existing automated failure diagnosis approaches leverage task execution trajectories, yet their effectiveness degrades as trajectory length and complexity increase.<n>For repository-level coding tasks specifically, trajectories are laden with noise, such as redundant program structure and verbose code context.<n>We propose TrajAudit, the first failure diagnosis framework for repository-level coding trajectories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T05:24:37Z)
• Meta-Agent: From Task Descriptions to Verified Multi-Agent Systems [36.485119937780524]
  We present Meta-Agent, a two-phase framework that automatically constructs and executes specialized multi-agent systems.<n>We introduce a three-level error attribution mechanism that distinguishes local, upstream, and structural failures.<n>Experiments against strong multi-agent baselines and ablation studies demonstrate consistent improvements in task success rate, error recovery, and workflow stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T19:38:54Z)
• AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide [107.0834449839233]
  We present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle.<n>We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy.<n>We show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:08:26Z)
• Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure [0.0]
  Coding agents represent a new paradigm in automated software engineering, combining the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models with tool-augmented interaction loops.<n>Top-ranked LLM-based coding agents still fail on over 20% of benchmarked problems.<n>We present a large-scale empirical study analyzing 9,374 trajectories from 19 agents on 500 tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T21:56:23Z)
• AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents [50.481033105867205]
  We introduce AgentProcessBench, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating step-level effectiveness in realistic, tool-augmented trajectories.<n>The benchmark comprises 1,000 diverse trajectories and 8,509 human-labeled step annotations with 89.1% inter-annotator agreement.<n>It features a ternary labeling scheme to capture exploration and an error propagation rule to reduce labeling ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T16:13:58Z)
• What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing? [37.56537537883771]
  We analyze 28 LLM-based penetration testing systems and evaluate five representative implementations across three benchmarks of increasing complexity.<n>We show that Type B failures share a root cause that is largely invariant to the underlying LLM: agents lack real-time task difficulty estimation.<n>We present Excalibur, a penetration testing agent that couples strong tooling with difficulty-aware planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T18:42:40Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• Explainable and Fine-Grained Safeguarding of LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Bi-Level Graph Anomaly Detection [76.91230292971115]
  Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown strong capabilities in solving complex tasks.<n>XG-Guard is an explainable and fine-grained safeguarding framework for detecting malicious agents in MAS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T13:46:36Z)
• DoVer: Intervention-Driven Auto Debugging for LLM Multi-Agent Systems [48.971606069204825]
  DoVer is an intervention-driven debug framework for large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems.<n>It augments hypothesis generation with active verification through targeted interventions.<n>DoVer flips 18-28% of failed trials into successes, achieves up to 16% milestone progress, and validates or refutes 30-60% of failure hypotheses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T09:23:48Z)
• COMPASS: Enhancing Agent Long-Horizon Reasoning with Evolving Context [17.575806280348797]
  Small errors compound across steps, and even state-of-the-art models often hallucinate or lose coherence.<n>We propose a lightweight hierarchical framework that separates tactical execution, strategic oversight, and context organization into three specialized components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T20:14:26Z)
• UltraHorizon: Benchmarking Agent Capabilities in Ultra Long-Horizon Scenarios [63.67884284105684]
  We introduce textbfUltraHorizon, a novel benchmark that measures the foundational capabilities essential for complex real-world challenges.<n>Agents are designed in long-horizon discovery tasks where they must iteratively uncover hidden rules.<n>Our experiments reveal that LLM-agents consistently underperform in these settings, whereas human participants achieve higher scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T02:04:00Z)
• Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail? [87.90075668488434]
  We introduce MAST-Data, a comprehensive dataset of 1600+ annotated traces collected across 7 popular MAS frameworks.<n>We build the first Multi-Agent System Failure taxonomy (MAST)<n>We leverage MAST and MAST-Data to analyze failure patterns across models (GPT4, Claude 3, Qwen2.5, CodeLlama) and tasks (coding, math, general agent)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T19:04:38Z)

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.