Do Agents Need to Plan Step-by-Step? Rethinking Planning Horizon in Data-Centric Tool Calling

Planning is central to LLM agents: before acting, an agent must decompose goals, select tools, reason over constraints, and decide when a task is infeasible. Yet existing agent evaluations often report only end-to-end success, making it difficult to determine whether failures stem from planning or execution. We introduce Agent Planning Benchmark (APB), a planning-specific diagnostic benchmark with 4,209 multimodal cases across 22 domains and five settings, covering holistic planning, feedback-conditioned step-wise planning, and robustness under extraneous tools, broken tools, and unsolvable tasks. Across 12 MLLMs, APB reveals systematic weaknesses in long-horizon planning, tool-noise robustness, calibrated refusal, and inference-time refinement. We further validate APB on 200 ToolSandbox tasks and 200 $τ^2$-bench tasks, where APB-guided refinement consistently improves plan correctness, plan grade, and downstream execution metrics across three representative models. APB thus serves as an upstream diagnostic complement to execution benchmarks. The APB benchmark and code are available in \href{https://github.com/Mikivishy/AgentPlanningBenchmark}{this URL}.

LLM agents increasingly operate in large tool ecosystems, where real-world tasks require discovering relevant tools, inferring implicit sub-goals, and adapting to dynamic environments over long horizons. However, existing benchmarks rarely evaluate planning under retrieval-limited tool visibility. To address this gap, we introduce PlanBench-XL, an interactive benchmark of 327 retail tasks over 1,665 tools that tests whether agents can iteratively retrieve usable tools, invoke them to uncover intermediate evidence for subsequent calls toward the final goal. PlanBench-XL further features an optional blocking mechanism that simulates real-world unpredictability through missing, failing, or distracting tool functions, forcing agents to detect disrupted paths and adapt at runtime. Experiments on ten leading LLMs show that massive-tool planning remains challenging: while GPT-5.4 achieves 51.90% accuracy in block-free settings, it collapses to 11.36% under the most severe blocking condition. Further analysis shows that agents are especially vulnerable when failures lack explicit error signals or when recovery requires longer alternative tool-use paths. These results establish PlanBench-XL as a testbed for diagnosing agentic planning failures and highlight the need for robust adaptive planning in long-horizon tasks with large, imperfect tool environments.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on external tools to complete complex real-world tasks. However, reliable tool-use planning remains challenging due to the limitations of implicit reasoning and the evolving nature of real-world execution environments. Existing tool-use agents typically rely on LLMs to infer tool compositions from textual descriptions, which can lead to inefficient exploration and unreliable execution in complex tasks. To address these challenges, we model tool relations at the schema level and construct a directed Tool--Schema Hypergraph, in which tools are represented as hyperedges from their required input-schema nodes to their output-schema nodes. Furthermore, we propose HyperAgent, a Tool--Schema Hypergraph-guided framework for dynamic planning and execution. Given a task, HyperAgent first extracts a task-relevant tool context graph and uses it to guide the construction of a schema-aware Task DAG. During execution, HyperAgent dynamically realizes each subtask by constructing a state-conditioned tool support graph through deficit-oriented expansion, which identifies unresolved requirements and retrieves supporting producer tools according to the current agent state. Experiments on AppWorld demonstrate that HyperAgent improves task completion performance while reducing redundant API calls, LLM interactions, and token consumption compared with existing agent baselines.