How Many Tools Should an LLM Agent See? A Chance-Corrected Answer

Vyzantinos Repantis; Ameya Gawde; Harshvardhan Singh; Joey Blackwell

cs.IRMay 23, 2026

How Many Tools Should an LLM Agent See? A Chance-Corrected Answer

Authors: Vyzantinos Repantis, Ameya Gawde, Harshvardhan Singh, Joey Blackwell

Organizations: Meta Platforms

Abstract

Before an LLM agent can use a tool, a retrieval system must decide which candidate tools to show to the agent. How long should that shortlist be? Show too many tools and the model struggles to choose. Show too few and the correct tool may not appear. Most systems apply a fixed shortlist size to every query, but no standard metric exists to evaluate whether that size was appropriate. We treat the number of tools shown to an LLM agent as the object of evaluation and we apply Bits-over-Random (BoR), a chance-corrected metric that asks whether success at a given depth is better than what random selection would achieve at that same depth. We evaluate BoR across three tool-selection benchmarks, multiple scorers, and registries ranging from 20 to 3,251 tools. We then turn the same principle into a reinforcement learning (RL) reward for choosing tool shortlist depth per query. The RL agent is deliberately simple, serving as a probe of the metric rather than a proposed system. As the shortlist grows, random chance of including the correct tool rises, so the reward naturally decreases, reducing the need for an engineered depth penalty. On BFCL (370 tools), the learned policy nearly matches the coverage of showing 50 tools ( $90.3\%$ vs $90.8\%$ ) while presenting only 7 on average. On ToolBench (3,251 tools), a fixed shortlist of 5 tools achieves higher aggregate coverage ( $64.7\%$ vs $61.9\%$ ) but finds nothing on hard queries (correct tool ranked 6th-20th). The BoR agent finds $16.7\%$ on those same queries by searching deeper. Downstream validation with Claude Sonnet 4.6 indicates that shorter adaptive lists also improve the LLM's ability to select the right tool: $93.1\%$ versus $87.1\%$ when always shown 5 tools, widening to $76.8\%$ vs $60.9\%$ on medium-difficulty queries where the correct tool is present but not ranked first.

Explore similar work

Jun 13, 2026cs.AI

ToolMenuBench: Benchmarking Tool-Menu Filtering Strategies for Reliable and Efficient LLM Agents

Tool-augmented large language model agents increasingly operate over large tool libraries, but existing evaluations often focus on whether a model can call a tool correctly rather than how the visible tool menu shapes reliability, efficiency, and safety-relevant risk exposure. We introduce ToolMenuBench, a benchmark for evaluating tool-menu construction in multi-step LLM agents. ToolMenuBench varies tool-menu size, distractor type, state-dependent task structure, and risk exposure, and reports both filter-level and downstream agent metrics, including visible-tool count, risky-tool exposure, task success, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and token usage. In a controlled evaluation across seven model backends, three tool-menu sizes, six filtering methods, and seven evaluation settings, CMTF improves task success from 32.1% under all-tools exposure to 85.7%, while reducing average token usage by roughly 98%. Causal minimal tool filtering achieves the strongest overall tradeoff, reducing visible tools, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and risky-tool exposure relative to unfiltered exposure, lexical filtering, state-aware filtering, and broader causal-path baselines. ToolMenuBench provides a reusable evaluation framework for studying the agent-interface problem: which tools should be visible, when they should be visible, and under what cost or risk constraints.

Rahul Suresh Babu, Laxmipriya Ganesh Iyer

Large Language Model Agents Large Language Model Calls Reliable

Ask PDF

May 10, 2026cs.CL

LLM Agents Already Know When to Call Tools -- Even Without Reasoning

Tool-augmented LLM agents tend to call tools indiscriminately, even when the model can answer directly. Each unnecessary call wastes API fees and latency, yet no existing benchmark systematically studies when a tool call is actually needed. We propose When2Tool, a benchmark of 18 environments (15 single-hop, 3 multi-hop) spanning three categories of tool necessity -- computational scale, knowledge boundaries, and execution reliability -- each with controlled difficulty levels that create a clear decision boundary between tool-necessary and tool-unnecessary tasks. We evaluate two families of training-free baselines: Prompt-only (varying the prompt to discourage unnecessary calls) and Reason-then-Act (requiring the model to reason about tool necessity before acting). Both provide limited control: Prompt-only suppresses necessary calls alongside unnecessary ones, and Reason-then-Act still incurs a disproportionate accuracy cost on hard tasks. To understand why these baselines fail, we probe the models' hidden states and find that tool necessity is linearly decodable from the pre-generation representation with AUROC 0.89--0.96 across six models, substantially exceeding the model's own verbalized reasoning. This reveals that models already know when tools are needed, but fail to act on this knowledge during generation. Building on this finding, we propose Probe&Prefill, which uses a lightweight linear probe to read the hidden-state signal and prefills the model's response with a steering sentence. Across all models tested, Probe&Prefill reduces tool calls by 48% with only 1.7% accuracy loss, while the best baseline at comparable accuracy only reduces 6% of tool calls, or achieves a similar tool call reduction but incurs a 5

\times

higher accuracy loss. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/when2tool

Chung-En Sun, Linbo Liu, Ge Yan +2

Large Language Model Calls Large Language Model Agents

Ask PDF

Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

Spurious Tool Use: When RL Agents Learn the Wrong Reason to Act

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly interleave natural language reasoning with external tools such as web search and code execution. These tool-use policies are often optimized via reinforcement learning (RL), which can amplify spurious correlations in the training data. In this work, we study when and why RL-trained agents learn shortcut tool-selection policies: invoking tools based on superficial prompt cues rather than genuine task requirements. We construct controlled synthetic environments combining factual question answering and mathematical reasoning tasks, and inject cues that are strongly correlated with specific tools during training but causally irrelevant to tool necessity. Across counterfactual evaluations where cues are present but the associated tools are not required, agents exhibit substantial shortcut behavior, with spurious tool invocation rates increasing by up to 39 percent. However, shortcut formation is not universal: across the conditions we test, it arises only when the agent has already learned to use the target tool reliably, suggesting that task competence, rather than dataset imbalance alone, is a key factor in shortcut learning. A swapped-cue analysis further shows that semantic alignment between cues and tools substantially amplifies this effect. To mitigate these failures, we introduce a dense, decision-level reward in which an LLM judge evaluates the necessity of each tool call. This tool-necessity reward effectively suppresses cue-driven tool use while preserving task performance, providing a practical approach to improving the robustness of LLM agent tool-use policies.

Yiwei Yang, Haoxiang Zhang, Bingbing Wen +6

Topic pending

Ask PDF