Open, Reliable, and Collective: A Community-Driven Framework for Tool-Using AI Agents

Tool-calling is essential for Large Language Model (LLM) agents to complete real-world tasks. While most existing benchmarks assume simple, perfectly documented tools, real-world tools (e.g., general "search" APIs) are often opaque, lacking clear best practices or failure modes. Can LLM agents improve their performance in environments with opaque tools by interacting and subsequently improving documentation? To study this, we create OpaqueToolsBench, a benchmark consisting of three distinct task-oriented environments: general function calling, interactive chess playing, and long-trajectory agentic search. Each environment provides underspecified tools that models must learn to use effectively to complete the task. Results on OpaqueToolsBench suggest existing methods for automatically documenting tools are expensive and unreliable when tools are opaque. To address this, we propose a simple framework, ToolObserver, that iteratively refines tool documentation by observing execution feedback from tool-calling trajectories. Our approach outperforms existing methods on OpaqueToolsBench across datasets, even in relatively hard settings. Furthermore, for test-time tool exploration settings, our method is also efficient, consuming 3.5-7.5x fewer total tokens than the best baseline.

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.

LLM agents use tools to access information and perform computations beyond their parametric knowledge. Existing tool-use benchmarks evaluate whether agents select and call the right tools, assuming that tool returns are reliable. However, tools can return plausible but incorrect outputs. We evaluate 14 models with three tools (web search, an LLM sub-agent, and a code executor), corrupting their returns to examine whether agents overrely on unreliable tools. Agents adopt corrupted returns at high rates, with mean adoption exceeding one third for every tool and reaching 68.0% for web search. Corrupted returns also frequently override correct answers that agents give without tools, and this reliance persists in more complex tasks and in tasks that combine multiple tools. Agents often make more tool calls under corrupted returns, and reasoning traces show them questioning a return and even stating the correct answer. Nevertheless, they still pass the corrupted content to users, rarely warning them of the conflict. We further test interventions spanning prompts, tool metadata, post-training, and activation steering. Verification prompts reduce adoption across all three tools while largely preserving accuracy with correct returns, and reliability labels provide partial mitigation in web search. The tested post-training methods offer limited gains, and the effect of activation steering depends on the model and intervention strength. Overall, our findings provide a basis for diagnosing tool overreliance and for developing agents that assess tool returns rather than assuming their reliability.