The evolution of LLMs into tool-enabled agents creates a new class of safety challenges associated with real-world execution rather than simple text generation. Existing alignment methods often rely on coarse refusal signals or static supervision, making it difficult to balance safety with useful tool execution across diverse agentic risks. We introduce RUBAS, a rubric-based reinforcement learning framework for agent safety. RUBAS decomposes agent behavior into four dimensions: tool-use safety, argument safety, response safety, and helpfulness. These structured rubrics provide fine-grained and interpretable rewards over complete agent trajectories, enabling reinforcement learning to optimize safe tool use while preserving task completion. Extensive experiments across multiple agent safety benchmarks and models show that RUBAS improves safety over standard alignment baselines, reduces tool-grounded hallucinations, and maintains competitive utility. Our results suggest that multi-dimensional rubric rewards provide an effective training signal for aligning LLM agents in safety-critical tool-use settings.
AI agents extend large language models (LLMs) with external tools, enabling them to perform complex tasks and translate model outputs into consequential real-world actions. Yet LLMs often become substantially less safe when deployed as agents, and the source of this degradation remains poorly understood. In this paper, we identify schema-formatted tool specifications as a primary source of agent safety degradation and show, through white-box representation analysis, that they weaken the model's internal refusal signals and contribute to unsafe tool execution. Building on this finding, we propose SafeKeep, an inference-time safeguard that decouples safety judgment from tool execution: it assesses requests using flattened textual tool specifications while retaining the original schema-formatted specifications for execution. Across two representative benchmarks and four LLMs, including both white-box and black-box models, SafeKeep increases the average refusal rate for harmful requests from 23.8% to 70.6% and reduces the average attack success rate under observation-level prompt injection from 25.6% to 2.5%. It also outperforms existing safeguards and preserves task-handling capability. We release the code and data at https://github.com/snowcatsmoking/SafeKeep .
Tool-using LLM agents increasingly rely on external tools to make consequential decisions, yet most existing agent-security benchmarks and defenses implicitly assume that tool feedback is trustworthy once a tool has been selected. We study a different failure mode, cognitive poisoning, in which a malicious tool behaves plausibly during exploration, accumulates trust through benign-looking feedback, and becomes harmful only when hidden state conditions align with the final executable action. To study this setting, we construct TRUST-Bench, a task-conditioned benchmark of 1,970 hidden-trigger tool-compromise episodes with matched safe controls, introduce an asymmetric penalty metric, GuardedJoint, to better reflect real deployment risk, and present VISTA-Guard, a backbone-agnostic framework for final-action risk scoring. The core idea is to abstract multi-step tool interaction into structured environment variables that encode trust-formation dynamics and then score the risk of the final executable action from this trajectory-conditioned representation. Experiments show that prompt-centric heuristics, scalarized features, and zero-shot judges fail in this regime, whereas trajectory-aware final-action scoring yields strong in-domain discrimination and remains effective under balanced out-of-distribution transfer. Under GuardedJoint, VISTA-Guard reaches 84.2 in-domain and 56.9 on balanced out-of-distribution evaluation, while methods that optimize only one side of the safety--utility tradeoff collapse to zero. These findings support a broader view of agent security in black-box tool ecosystems: the decisive defense target is not local prompt text or tool descriptors alone, but the way trust is formed across the interaction trajectory and committed through the final action.
LLM-based guardrails typically safeguard agents by evaluating proposed actions or inputs before execution, producing safety signals such as binary allow/deny decisions, risk categories, and/or explanatory rationales about potential policy violations. However, agent risks often arise when otherwise benign tasks are contaminated by untrusted external content, unsafe instructions, or risky tool use. Existing guardrails often flag the entire task uniformly as unsafe, thereby blocking the threat but sacrificing the benign part. Moreover, existing work largely evaluates guardrails in isolation, leaving unclear whether their interventions lead to safer downstream agent behavior. To address this, we introduce TRIAD (Tripartite Response for Iterative Agent Guardrailing), a guardrail-integrated agent framework that leverages guardrail-generated verbal feedback as a guiding signal to keep the agent aligned with benign objectives at each planning step. We finetune a language model on a self-curated training dataset to output one of three decisions: proceed, refuse, or update, together with structured natural-language feedback. Rather than merely allowing or blocking execution, update guides the agent to revise its plan, avoid harmful components, and preserve the benign task where possible. TRIAD injects this feedback into the agent's context, enabling subsequent plan revision and forming a closed loop between guardrail feedback and agent planning. Extensive experiments on ASB and AgentHarm show that TRIAD reduces the average attack success rate to 10.42%, while achieving the best safety-utility trade-off among guardrail-integrated baselines. Our code is available at: https://github.com/YUHAOSUNABC/TRIAD.