Lost in Execution: On the Multilingual Robustness of Tool Calling in Large Language Models

The reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) for API calling degrades in multilingual settings. A common failure occurs when a model selects the correct tool but generates argument values in an inconsistent language, which we term Argument Language Mismatch (ALM). Although semantically correct, such outputs are operationally invalid and not captured by standard API-calling metrics. We revisit post-training strategies for mitigating ALM and find that, in our benchmark, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) provides a strong baseline, substantially improving argument language consistency and end-to-end function call accuracy. Under consistent model selection, SFT achieves performance comparable to, and sometimes exceeding more complex reinforcement learning (RL) approaches. We further examine whether RL with structured, argument-aware rewards offers additional benefits. While methods such as Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) can improve language consistency and better preserve general reasoning ability, these gains are incremental and most pronounced in generalization and multi-objective trade-offs. Overall, our results suggest that much of the performance in multilingual API grounding can be achieved through careful supervised training, with RL providing targeted rather than fundamental improvements.

Multilingual LLMs are increasingly used when instruction, source content, and required response languages do not coincide. Existing benchmarks have expanded multilingual instruction-following evaluation, but they rarely isolate these three roles within a fully crossed design. We introduce MTM-Bench, a controlled benchmark for language-conditioned task execution in which each instance is defined by a triplet $(L_{\text{instr}}, L_{\text{content}}, L_{\text{resp}})$. Across English, Spanish, and Chinese, MTM-Bench enumerates all 27 triplets and contains 2{,}430 instances per model across semantic reversal, final-state extraction, and language purity with update realization. We evaluate 20 frontier and open-weight LLMs using decomposed metrics for semantic correctness, target-language adherence, constraint satisfaction, contamination ratio, and joint success, with scoring validated by a targeted human audit. The fully crossed design reveals that degradation is organized by the role a language occupies in the task structure, not merely by mismatch count. The response-language role is the dominant axis of variation, and a single response-slot mismatch accounts for most degradation. The response-only and full-mismatch comparison suggests that mismatch count is not a monotonic predictor of difficulty, with model-level ordering varying across systems. Task families fail through distinct channels, showing that semantic correctness alone does not capture reliable multilingual task execution.

Multi-turn tool calling is a core evaluation scenario for large language model (LLM) agents. On public tool-calling benchmarks, open-weight models now approach or even surpass closed-source frontier models in aggregate accuracy. However, this metric averages over many different multi-turn situations and obscures whether progress is balanced across them. We propose an action-class-oriented diagnostic framework that decomposes multi-turn failures into two orthogonal modes: action-class miscalibration and action-execution failure. The framework operates over a four-class action space (TOOL_CALL/ASK/REFUSE/CONFIRM) and introduces a self-revealing upper bound Acc <= GAR (Gold Action Recall); the two modes show up as bound violation (Acc > GAR, exposing state-grader masking of miscalibration) and large bound slack (GAR >> Acc, localizing execution failure within TOOL_CALL). We validate it on a panel of tool-calling models across multiple multi-turn benchmarks. Across our panel, the diagnostic reveals action-class miscalibration as a substantial failure mode the state grader cannot see. This gap inflates standing for heavily tool-trained families, which our diagnostic separates from families with context-appropriate action choice. Calibration is reshapable through context-only perturbations, but the reshape is heterogeneous: a single perturbation moves accuracy in opposite directions across families (up to +11.5 vs -21.0 pp on the same scenario), and its effect further depends on the perturbation mechanism. We argue that multi-turn tool-calling evaluations should supplement aggregate accuracy with action-class diagnostics that expose what the model actually does in each scenario.