Tool Calling and Structured Output are two core capabilities of modern Agent systems, yet their interaction under joint deployment conditions remains insufficiently understood. This paper reports a reproducible phenomenon observed in a production Agent system: when Tool Calling and JSON Schema constraints are simultaneously enabled, multiple open-weight models cease invoking tools despite maintaining high schema compliance. We refer to this behavior as Tool Suppression. Through controlled experiments across multiple model families and deployment settings, we consistently reproduce Tool Suppression under joint constraints, while tool execution and schema compliance remain functional when evaluated independently. Further analysis reveals that JSON Schema constraints are compiled into grammar-based token masks, causing tool-call tokens to become unreachable during decoding. This provides an implementation-level explanation for the observed behavior. To interpret the phenomenon, we formulate the Constraint Priority Inversion (CPI) hypothesis, which suggests that schema satisfaction may dominate action-selection behavior under multiple simultaneous constraints. We present CPI as a behavioral hypothesis consistent with the observed evidence rather than a verified internal mechanism. To mitigate the problem, we propose Transparent Two-Pass Execution, an inference-time strategy that decouples tool execution from schema-constrained response generation. Experimental results show that this approach restores tool invocation while preserving structured output guarantees without requiring model retraining. These findings suggest that evaluating tool use and structured output separately may overlook important reliability issues in production Agent systems. Code, data, and docs will be released at https://github.com/Fzsama/Constrain-Tax-26-06.git.
Production agent frameworks (OpenAI Function Calling, Anthropic Tool Use, MCP) transmit tool schemas as JSON, a format designed for machine parsing, not for interpretation by language models. For small models (4B-14B), this protocol mismatch accounts for the majority of tool-use failure at production catalog sizes. We present TSCG, a deterministic tool-schema compiler that resolves this mismatch at the API boundary, converting JSON schemas into token-efficient structured text without model access, fine-tuning, or runtime search. TSCG combines eight composable operators with a formal compression bound (>=51% on well-formed schemas). On TSCG-Agentic-Bench (about 19,000 calls, 12 models, 5 scenarios), TSCG restores Phi-4 14B from 0% to 84.4% accuracy at 20 tools (90.3% at 50 tools) and achieves 108-181% accuracy-retained ratio across three models on BFCL. Format-versus-compression decomposition (R^2=0.88 -> 0.03) establishes representation change as the dominant mechanism. Per-operator isolation across three frontier models reveals three distinct operator-response profiles: operator-hungry (Opus 4.7), operator-sensitive (GPT-5.2), and operator-robust (Sonnet 4), providing per-model deployment guidance. Scaling experiments show accuracy advantages persisting on heavy production MCP schemas (+5.0 pp at about 10,500 input tokens) despite saturation on light synthetic catalogs, with 52-57% token savings throughout. The synthetic benchmark generalizes to real MCP schemas within 0.1 accuracy points. TSCG ships as a 1,200-line zero-dependency TypeScript package.
Production LLM systems increasingly require machine-readable outputs: JSON objects, typed traces, regex-constrained fields, and tool-call schemas. This paper targets on-device and low-cost small language model (SLM) deployments, where sub-3B models are attractive for privacy, latency, and commodity hardware but have limited capacity to satisfy schemas while solving tasks. The usual engineering assumption is that hard output constraints improve reliability without changing the underlying answer. We show that this assumption is unsafe for small models. We introduce \emph{constraint tax}, a measurement protocol for isolating the answer and executable-accuracy loss caused by structured-output constraints at fixed model, fixed task distribution, and fixed problem instances. Across 15,000 commodity-GPU generations with Qwen2.5-0.5B, Qwen2.5-1.5B, and SmolLM2-1.7B, hard answer-only schema decoding raises schema validity from 61.5% to 100.0%, but lowers answer accuracy from 19.7% to 11.0% and increases wrong-valid-schema outputs from 49.5% to 88.9%. The strongest industry analogue is a deterministic calendar tool-call task: Qwen2.5-1.5B achieves 91.5% executable accuracy with prompt-only JSON but only 48.0% under the same hard tool-call schema, while both modes are 100.0% schema-valid. The error is semantic, not structural. We also show that the 3B boundary still pays a direct-schema tax and that delayed packaging supports a constructive design pattern: reason free, constrain late. The practical conclusion is direct: production systems should report schema validity, answer accuracy, executable accuracy, and wrong-valid-schema rate separately.
Tool calling is central to modern language model agents, but aggregate benchmark scores often hide where tool use fails. A model that never calls a needed tool and a model that calls the tool but ignores the result can look similar under final task accuracy. We introduce ToolFailBench, a diagnostic benchmark for measuring tool-use failures across 1,000 tasks in finance, medicine, law, cybersecurity, and real estate. Tool-required tasks return values the model wouldn't guess, forcing it to trust the tool while control tasks attach the same tools but should be answered directly. We label each trace with Tool-Skip, Result-Ignore, Output-Fabrication, and Unnecessary-Tool-Use, using a rule classifier and two LLM judges aggregated by majority vote. Across 19 headline models, the best reaches 86.33% Clean Tool-Use Rate, showing that faithful tool use is not saturated. More importantly, models with similar aggregate scores fail in different ways: most stay disciplined on no-tool controls, while Llama-3.1 models show an Always-Call pattern, and at the same parameter scale Llama-3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-72B differ by 89 percentage points on control-task accuracy. Tool-use evaluation should measure not only whether agents call tools, but whether they use tool outputs correctly and avoid tools when none is needed.