Mind the Tool Failures: Achieving Synergistic Tool Gains for Medical Agents
Authors: Yunhui Gan, Tan Pan, Kaiyu Guo, Limei Han, Weimiao Yu, Guangnan Ye, Chen Jiang, Yuan Cheng
Organizations: Fudan University · Shanghai Academy of Artificial Intelligence for Science · Shanghai Innovation Institute · Bioinformatics Institute (BII), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) · The University of Queensland
Abstract
Medical AI agents increasingly use external tools for diagnosis, treatment recommendation, and evidence retrieval, yet most existing approaches assume that task-appropriate tools are reliable within their intended scope. This assumption is fragile in real clinical settings, where even relevant tools may fail on challenging instances and lead to unsafe downstream decisions. To address this issue, we study medical tool use under imperfect-tool settings to correct failure instances missed by individual tools. Instance-dependent failure patterns create a gap between the best fixed single tool and an ideal instance-wise selector, which we refer to as the Single-Oracle risk gap. The core challenge is that conventional task-level tool selection cannot realize this gap, as it is inherently bounded by the performance of the best single tool. Motivated by this observation, we therefore account for instance-level heterogeneity and formulate tool use as an instance-level selection problem. Particularly, we propose a GRPO-based reinforcement learning framework with rewards for probabilistic risk minimization and disagreement-aware synergy learning, which promotes instance-level correction of erroneous tool consensus. Furthermore, an entropy-guided sampling strategy is adopted to upweight high-disagreement instances, which provide stronger signals for learning instance-specific tool synergy. These two components complement each other in mitigating instance-level heterogeneity and improving tool synergy. Experiments on two tasks and seven medical benchmarks show that our method consistently achieves robust and stable improvements over a broad range of baselines, highlighting the importance of synergy-aware tool use for reliable medical agentic systems.
Clinical reasoning demands multi-step interactions -- gathering patient history, ordering tests, interpreting results, and making safe treatment decisions -- yet a unified training environment provides the breadth of clinical domains and specialized tools to train generalizable medical AI agents through reinforcement learning remains elusive. We present a comprehensive empirical study of multi-turn agentic RL for medical AI, built on \gym{}, a gymnasium-compatible environment spanning 10 clinical domains with 3.6K+ tasks, 135 domain-specific tools, and a knowledge base of 828K medical passages. Our analysis reveals that agentic multi-turn structure degrades into verbose single-turn monologues, characterized by monotonic length explosion and a simultaneous erosion of tool-use frequency. We characterize how this collapse, alongside distillation instability, stems from the misalignment of sparse terminal rewards with sequential clinical trajectories. We find that vanilla GRPO achieves strong final accuracy on some benchmarks but suffers from training instability, evidenced by significant oscillations in response length and prolonged convergence periods. To improve training efficiency and stability, we propose Turn-level Truncated On-Policy Distillation (TT-OPD), a self-distillation framework where a gradient-free EMA teacher leverages outcome-privileged information to provide dense, outcome-aware KL regularization at every conversation turn. TT-OPD achieves the best performance on 10 of 18 benchmarks with an average +3.9~pp improvement over the non-RL baseline with faster early convergence, controlled response length, and sustained multi-turn tool use.
To make clinically grounded decisions, medical AI agents are expected to go beyond simple recognition and be capable of tool retrieval, evidence acquisition, and integration. Existing benchmarks largely evaluate isolated perception or single-turn question answering, and therefore provide limited visibility into failures of planning, tool recruitment, and rollout reliability. We introduce MedCTA, a benchmark for evaluating medical tool agents on clinician-validated, step-implicit tasks grounded in realistic multimodal clinical inputs, including radiology images, pathology slides, and reports. MedCTA comprises 107 real-world clinical tasks with clinician-verified executable trajectories over 5 deployed tools, and supports process-aware evaluation of tool selection, argument validity, execution stability, trajectory fidelity, and outcome quality. We benchmark 18 open- and closed-source multimodal models and find that even frontier systems remain brittle in multi-step clinical tool use: autonomous rollouts are dominated by protocol failures, premature stopping, and incorrect tool recruitment, while gold-standard tool routing yields large but still incomplete gains. These results show that strong backbone perception does not translate into reliable agentic behavior in clinical settings. MedCTA provides a rigorous testbed for auditing, diagnosing, and advancing trustworthy medical AI agents. The dataset and evaluation suite are available at https://ivul-kaust.github.io/MedCTA/
Tajamul Ashraf, Hyewon Jeong, Fida Mohammad Thoker +1
Tool-using agents increasingly rely on external tools to complete multi-step tasks, but tool returns can fail in different ways and require different recovery actions. Existing robustness studies often use uncertainty-based measures to detect when an agent becomes unreliable. These measures can reveal that something has gone wrong, but they do not directly identify the type of tool failure or the appropriate response. We address this limitation by analyzing tool failures at the moment a return enters the agent context. Our approach combines two complementary signals. The first compares the likelihood of the returned content under the tool schema and under the full trajectory prefix. The second measures the agent's probability distribution over its legal next actions. We evaluate the approach by injecting incomplete and inconsistent returns into a retail customer-service benchmark. The results show that likelihood-based signals clearly capture incomplete returns and some direct inconsistencies, while action-based signals reveal how strongly a failure changes the next decision. Some failures that are weak under likelihood signals can still redirect the agent toward state-changing actions. These findings show that tool failures can be recognized at the return boundary, but reliable diagnosis requires combining multiple signals.
Jiachen Xu, Torben Bach Pedersen, Zhongming Yao +2