As web agents rapidly evolve, an increasing body of work has moved beyond conventional atomic browser interactions and explored tool use as a higher-level action paradigm. Although prior studies have shown the promise of tools, their conclusions are often drawn from limited experimental scales and sometimes non-comparable settings. As a result, several fundamental questions remain unclear: i) whether tools provide consistent gains for web agents, ii) what practical design principles characterize effective tools, and iii) what side effects tool use may introduce. To establish a stronger empirical foundation for future research, we revisit tool use in web agents through an extensive and carefully controlled study across diverse tool sources, backbone models, tool-use frameworks, and evaluation benchmarks. Our findings both revise some prior conclusions and complement others with broader evidence. We hope this study provides a more reliable empirical basis and inspires future research on tool-use web agents.
Tool-augmented multimodal agents show strong benchmark gains, often taken as evidence that agents have learned to use tools. We argue that this interpretation can be premature: a tool-call trace alone does not show whether the tool supplied answer-critical information. We study two representative ``thinking with images'' agents, Thyme and DeepEyesV2, across real-world understanding, OCR, chart understanding, and mathematical reasoning. Each agent is compared with its Tool-Free counterpart and with a Pure-Text Reasoner trained from the same source pool without tool-calling trajectories. Tool access yields little consistent aggregate improvement, does not reliably reduce generated-token cost, and leaves only a small tool-only solved set: 93% of DeepEyesV2's tool-solved problems and 96% of Thyme's are also solved by at least one non-tool setting. Mechanism ablations further show that the full tool-use loop does not consistently outperform either the tool-call format or the returned execution result alone. In the settings we study, the analyzed agents appear to learn tool-calling patterns more reliably than tool-contributed capabilities, suggesting that evaluation should distinguish tool availability from whether tools actually expand what agents can solve.
As web agents close the gap with humans on benchmarks, one question arises: Do today's agents perform just as well on tomorrow's web? We introduce TimeWarp, a benchmark that emulates the evolving web. TimeWarp consists of three web environments, each with six UI versions spanning UI design, frontend code, and workflows from different eras of the internet. We pair TimeWarp with a set of complex, realistic tasks covering different forms of web navigation. Our experiments reveal that vision-based agents are vulnerable to changes, while text-based agents become brittle once fine-tuned on a single version. To address this, we propose TimeTraj, a new annotation method that uses plan distillation to collect trajectories across multiple versions. By training agents on teacher rollouts using our BC-variant, we achieve substantial performance gains: 20.4% to 37.7% for Qwen-3 4B and 0% to 27.0% for Llama-3.1 8B models. Our work helps study generalization across web designs and opens a new paradigm for collecting plans rather than trajectories to improve the robustness of web agents.
Agentic AI architectures augment LLMs with external tools, unlocking strong capabilities. However, tool use is not always beneficial; some calls may be redundant or even harmful. Effective tool use, therefore, hinges on a core LLM decision: whether to call or not call a tool when performing a task. This decision is particularly challenging for web search tools, where the benefits of external information depend on the model's internal knowledge and its ability to integrate potentially noisy tool responses. We introduce a principled framework inspired by decision-making theory to evaluate web search tool-use decisions along three key factors: necessity, utility, and affordability. Our analysis combines two complementary lenses: a normative perspective that infers true need and utility from an optimal allocation of tool calls, and a descriptive perspective that infers the model's self-perceived need and utility from their observed behaviors. We evaluate six open and one closed-source frontier models under two harnesses, one conditioning on only the current turn and its search results, the other on the full execution traces, across four web-search tools and three tasks. In every setting, we find that a model's perceived need and utility are frequently misaligned with the true need and utility. Building on this framework, we train lightweight estimators of need and utility from the models' hidden states. These estimators drive simple controllers that improve decision quality and yield stronger task performance than the self-perceived baseline for most of the open-source models.