OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on external tools to accomplish complex real-world tasks, making tool documentation a critical grounding resource for LLM agents. Existing studies mainly focus on improving the tool-use capabilities of LLM agents, while largely treating tool documentation as a fixed input. Although several recent works attempt to optimize tool documentation through rewriting or compression, little is known about how the information contained in tool documentation affects agent performance across different settings. To bridge this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical study on tool documentation for LLM agents. Our study reveals substantial heterogeneity in the information fields provided by existing tool documentation. Moreover, the effectiveness of different information fields is highly dependent on the task domain, LLM backbone, and agent paradigm, indicating that no fixed tool documentation can consistently generalize across diverse agent settings. Motivated by these findings, we propose DocsChisel, an adaptive tool documentation optimization framework for LLM agents. DocsChisel analyzes failed execution traces of a target LLM agent to identify documentation-related issues, and iteratively optimizes tool documentation by adding, removing, and refining information fields for each tool. We evaluate DocsChisel against two state-of-the-art baselines, i.e., EasyTool and DRAFT. Experimental results show that DocsChisel improves the task success rate of LLM agents by 95.89% over the original tool documentation and by 75.15%, on average, over existing baselines, while incurring limited optimization time and token overhead

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.

Tool-augmented LLM agents tend to call tools indiscriminately, even when the model can answer directly. Each unnecessary call wastes API fees and latency, yet no existing benchmark systematically studies when a tool call is actually needed. We propose When2Tool, a benchmark of 18 environments (15 single-hop, 3 multi-hop) spanning three categories of tool necessity -- computational scale, knowledge boundaries, and execution reliability -- each with controlled difficulty levels that create a clear decision boundary between tool-necessary and tool-unnecessary tasks. We evaluate two families of training-free baselines: Prompt-only (varying the prompt to discourage unnecessary calls) and Reason-then-Act (requiring the model to reason about tool necessity before acting). Both provide limited control: Prompt-only suppresses necessary calls alongside unnecessary ones, and Reason-then-Act still incurs a disproportionate accuracy cost on hard tasks. To understand why these baselines fail, we probe the models' hidden states and find that tool necessity is linearly decodable from the pre-generation representation with AUROC 0.89--0.96 across six models, substantially exceeding the model's own verbalized reasoning. This reveals that models already know when tools are needed, but fail to act on this knowledge during generation. Building on this finding, we propose Probe&Prefill, which uses a lightweight linear probe to read the hidden-state signal and prefills the model's response with a steering sentence. Across all models tested, Probe&Prefill reduces tool calls by 48% with only 1.7% accuracy loss, while the best baseline at comparable accuracy only reduces 6% of tool calls, or achieves a similar tool call reduction but incurs a 5$\times$ higher accuracy loss. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/when2tool