Most language-model training data shows final artifacts, not the process that produced them. We study a tractable version of this question in tool use: when a model learns a stream of new API domains, does keeping tool-use trajectories help compared with stripping the intermediate API trace? We fine-tune Llama 3.1 8B Instruct with QLoRA on API-Bank using four sequential domain blocks. Condition A strips previous API request/response lines from the prompt and trains the model to predict the next API call. Condition B keeps the trajectory context. In a single-seed pilot, full held-out generation evaluation shows that Condition B reaches 56.9% final exact full-call accuracy compared with 39.2% for Condition A. B also improves final API-name accuracy by 7.7 points. However, B uses 25.1% more training tokens, the run uses one seed, and the task is next-call prediction rather than full dialogue success.
Tool learning enables large language models (LLMs) to use external tools for tasks beyond parametric knowledge. Reinforcement learning can optimize tool-call behavior from feedback, but current methods still face two problems: fixed-threshold curricula can become misaligned with the policy's evolving capability boundary, and additive rewards can leak argument-level credit when the predicted tool is wrong. To address these problems, we propose MATCH, a closed-loop framework for model-aware tool learning with curriculum scheduling and hierarchically gated rewards. Model-Aware Curriculum Learning (MACL) maintains reward-derived sample difficulty that co-evolves with the policy, and each epoch selects samples near the current capability boundary together with a top-k pool of harder cases. Hierarchical Tool-call Gated Reward (HTGR) scores tool name, argument key, and argument value as a gated chain, granting credit at each level only when prerequisites hold. The same HTGR rewards drive both GRPO updates and MACL's difficulty refresh, closing the loop between policy optimization and sample scheduling. On API-Bank and BFCL V3, MATCH reaches 72.19% and 62.87% overall accuracy, outperforming the main supervised and RL-based baselines. Backbone experiments further show consistent improvements across four backbones from two model families.
Large language model (LLM) agents must generalize from tools seen during training to unseen tools at deployment. A key challenge is tool trialing, i.e., excessive trials waste the interaction budget, whereas selective trials enable exploration of unfamiliar tools. Existing outcome-based post-training leaves wasteful trials unguided, while turn-level supervision may suppress necessary exploration. We introduce ToolCompass, a post-training framework that guides tool trialing by organizing tool-call representations according to shared functions. Specifically, ToolCompass models each function class as a von Mises--Fisher distribution and jointly reduces intra-function variation across domains and increases inter-function separation. This structure transfers experience from seen tools to functionally similar unseen tools, directing exploration away from unrelated alternatives. ToolCompass requires no ground-truth call traces or unseen-tool access and incurs no inference overhead. Experiments on AppWorld and FTRL show consistent gains across GRPO, RFT, and DMPO. improves AppWorld OOD task success by up to 10.71 percentage points over vanilla post-training and performs best among competitive baselines on both benchmarks.
When a tool-calling agent picks the wrong tool, the failure is invisible until execution: the email gets sent, the meeting gets missed. As agents take on consequential actions, one bad tool call can do real damage. We currently have no way to look inside the model and catch the mistake before it happens; this paper shows that we can. Inside the model, the choice of tool is carried by a single direction in activation space, one direction per pair of tools. Adding that direction during generation switches which tool the model picks. Across 12 instruction-tuned and 6 base models spanning Gemma 3, Qwen 3, Qwen 2.5, and Llama 3.1 (270M to 27B), this works at 83-100% accuracy on 4B+ instruction-tuned models on a 15-tool synthetic benchmark and at 77-94% on the real-API benchmark τ-bench airline. The JSON arguments that follow automatically adapt to the new tool's schema, so flipping the name is enough. The same per-tool directions also flag likely errors before they happen: queries where the model is unsure between two tools fail 21x more often than queries where it is not (Gemma 3 27B). This is not just topic injection: random vectors at the same magnitude give a 0% switch rate, and a probe within a single domain (14 airline tools that share one topic) still reads which tool the model will call at top-1 61-89% across five 4B-14B models. Even base models already carry the right tool internally before they can emit it: reading the chosen tool off the model's internal state (cosine readout) recovers 61-82% accuracy on BFCL while base generation lands at 2-10%, suggesting pretraining forms the representation and instruction tuning later wires it to the output. Our results cover single-turn, fixed-menu settings; on multi-turn agent loops the same intervention is less stable (matched-baseline gain or loss of up to 30 percentage points with no consistent direction).