AgroTools: A Benchmark for Tool-Augmented Multimodal Agents in Agriculture

Tool-using agents are increasingly expected to operate across realistic professional workflows, where they must interpret multimodal inputs, coordinate external tools, inspect intermediate artifacts, and revise their actions before producing a final result. Existing benchmarks, however, often evaluate tool use, computer use, and multimodal reasoning in isolation, leaving a gap between benchmark settings and end-to-end omni-modal tool use in the real world. To address this gap, we introduce MM-ToolBench, a benchmark and evaluation harness for task-oriented omni-modal tool use. MM-ToolBench contains 100 executable tasks from two macro task families, Customer Service and Intelligent Creation, covering 20 subcategory slices and supported by 27 MCP servers with 324 tools. The central design of MM-ToolBench is closed-loop multimodal verification: agents must execute tools, inspect rendered or transformed artifacts, and self-correct when outputs fail task-specific requirements. To make such evaluation scalable and verifiable, MM-ToolBench couples MCP-based execution with task-specific grounded evaluators and a semi-automated construction pipeline for scenario discovery, task instantiation, evaluator synthesis, and human audit. Experiments on 15 contemporary agentic models show that MM-ToolBench remains highly challenging: Claude Opus 4.6, commonly regarded as one of the strongest coding-agent models, achieves only 32.0% task success, far below the 94.0% human benchmark. We envision MM-ToolBench as a practical foundation for evaluating and advancing next-generation omni-modal tool-using agents through closed-loop multimodal verification.

Agricultural image understanding requires fine-grained recognition of plant diseases, pests, crop structures, and botanical species under complex real-world conditions. Despite recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), existing models remain limited to text-only outputs and lack pixel-level visual grounding capabilities. In this work, we introduce AgriScope, a unified pixel-grounded multimodal framework for agricultural image understanding. AgriScope jointly supports image-level, region-level, and pixel-level understanding within a unified framework, enabling tasks such as grounded caption generation, referring expression segmentation, and multi-turn multimodal interaction for agricultural imagery. AgriScope integrates biologically specialized semantic representations with dense spatial grounding through biological-semantic encoding, dense spatial representations, and pixel decoding. To support large-scale grounded learning, we introduce AgriGround, a large-scale pixel-grounded agricultural multimodal instruction-tuning dataset containing over 500K images and 11M instruction-following samples spanning plant disease analysis, crop and weed identification, insect pest recognition, and fine-grained botanical understanding. AgriGround is constructed through a multi-stage automatic annotation pipeline that integrates multimodal caption generation, phrase-level grounding, segmentation mask generation, and task-oriented instruction synthesis to produce densely grounded supervision. Extensive experiments across multiple agricultural vision-language tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of AgriScope in pixel-grounded multimodal understanding, establishing a strong benchmark for agricultural vision-language learning and visual grounding. The dataset and code will be made publicly available at (https://github.com/boudiafA/AgriScope)

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.