Utility-Guided Agent Orchestration for Efficient LLM Tool Use

Tool use enables large language models (LLMs) to access external information, invoke software systems, and act in digital environments beyond what can be solved from model parameters alone. Early research mainly studied whether a model could select and execute a correct single tool call. As agent systems evolve, however, the central problem has shifted from isolated invocation to multi-tool orchestration over long trajectories with intermediate state, execution feedback, changing environments, and practical constraints such as safety, cost, and verifiability. We comprehensively review recent progress in multi-tool LLM agents and analyzes the state of the art in this rapidly developing area. First, we unify task formulations and distinguish single-call tool use from long-horizon orchestration. Then, we organize the literature around six core dimensions: inference-time planning and execution, training and trajectory construction, safety and control, efficiency under resource constraints, capability completeness in open environments, and benchmark design and evaluation. We further summarize representative applications in software engineering, enterprise workflows, graphical user interfaces, and mobile systems. Finally, we discuss major challenges and outline future directions for building reliable, scalable, and verifiable multi-tool agents.

Deciding whether to call a tool is a core competence of an LLM agent, and a costly one to get wrong: needless calls add latency, accrue cost, and may trigger irreversible side effects, while missing calls leave the model confidently wrong on questions it could only answer through tool-calls. Models manage this balance poorly, both over-using and under-using tools. Existing methods such as post-training and prompt engineering are expensive and difficult to modify at inference time. We show that whether an instruction-tuned model calls a tool can be controlled by a single linear direction in its residual stream, extracted without any training from the model's own tool-use preference signal and turned into an inference-time intervention with no prompt change. Adding the direction with strength $α$ moves the call rate monotonically from near $0\%$ to over $90\%$ while keeping calls well-formed. The steering works in both directions: dialing it down suppresses calls, and dialing it up induces new calls that land precisely on the questions the model cannot answer from its own knowledge. We also show that the direction generalizes to unseen tools with strength comparable to each tool's own direction and without favoring any specific tool choice. With live tool execution, a single sweep of the steering traces a cost/accuracy Pareto frontier and nearly doubles open-domain QA accuracy ($0.29 \! \rightarrow \! 0.56$); the same recipe transfers across a diverse range of models spanning dense, MoE, and multimodal architectures, without any training. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/YuqiChen4188/Steering-Tool-Use-Propensity.

Agent orchestration frameworks have proliferated, collectively exceeding 290,000 GitHub stars across LangGraph, CrewAI, Google ADK, OpenAI Agents SDK, Semantic Kernel, Strands, and LlamaIndex. All follow the same pattern: an external orchestrator above the LLM, injecting instructions and routing decisions every turn. Recent work has shown this architecture is dominated for procedural tasks by simply providing the procedure in a frontier model's system prompt [Dennis et al., 2026a], at the cost of consuming the context window, requiring a frontier model for every conversation, and exposing proprietary procedures to third-party providers. Compiling the procedure into the weights of a small fine-tuned model -- creating a subterranean agent -- should resolve all of these concerns, and prior work (SimpleTOD, FireAct, SynTOD, WorkflowLLM, Agent Lumos) has shown the technique works. Yet developer adoption has overwhelmingly favored orchestration. We identify three perceived barriers and address each empirically across travel booking (14 nodes), Zoom support (14 nodes, product-specific knowledge), and insurance claims (55 nodes, 6 decision hubs).