It Lied to a Doctor to Buy Poison Ingredients: Quantifying Real-World Misuse of Phone-use Agents

Phone agents are increasingly expected to complete real mobile workflows rather than merely predict the next screen action. However, much of the current mobile-agent literature still evaluates agents primarily as GUI controllers that observe a screen, emit taps and swipes, and are scored by target app state. Real phone-use tasks are broader: they require deciding when to use app GUIs, device-side commands, or structured tools, while leaving evidence that the intended side effect actually occurred. We introduce PhoneHarness, a mixed-action benchmark and execution harness for studying phone-use agents on verifiable mobile workflows. PhoneHarness runs a device-side agent loop over GUI, CLI, and host-side tool actions, combining deterministic action routing with bounded GUI delegation and auditable execution traces. Its benchmark, PhoneHarness Bench, evaluates whether agents complete tasks with observable side effects, not only whether they produce plausible final answers. On the annotated evaluation split, PhoneHarness reaches a 75.0% pass rate, outperforming the strongest non-PhoneHarness settings by 12.9 percentage points. PhoneHarness and PhoneHarness Bench therefore play distinct but mutually dependent roles: the harness makes mixed phone workflows executable, while the benchmark measures whether agents can use that harness reliably and safely. Our findings suggest that reliable phone automation depends on action-surface routing and verifiable execution, not only visual GUI control.

When a phone-use agent avoids harm, does that show safety, or simply inability to act? Existing evaluations often cannot tell. A harmful outcome may be avoided because the agent recognized the risk and chose the safe action, or because it failed to understand the screen or execute any relevant action at all. These cases have different causes and call for different fixes, yet current benchmarks often merge them under task success, refusal, or final harmful outcome. We address this problem with PhoneSafety, a benchmark of 700 safety-critical moments drawn from real phone interactions across more than 130 apps. Each instance isolates the next decision at a risky moment and asks a simple question: does the model take the safe action, take the unsafe action, or fail to do anything useful? We evaluate eight representative phone-use agents under this framework. Our results reveal two main patterns. First, stronger general phone-use ability does not reliably imply safer choices at risky moments. Models that perform better on ordinary app tasks are not always the ones that behave more safely when the next action matters. Second, failures to do anything useful behave like a capability signal rather than a safety signal: they are concentrated in more visually and operationally demanding settings and remain stable when the evaluation protocol changes. Across models, failures split into two recurring patterns: unsafe choices in settings where the model can act but chooses wrongly, and inability to act in more visually and operationally demanding screens. Overall, a harmless outcome is not enough to count as evidence of safety. Evaluating phone-use agents requires separating unsafe judgment from inability to act.

Phones are becoming an important execution surface for general-purpose agents, but training open models for reliable phone use remains difficult because the environment that matters at deployment, real devices running real apps, is slow, stateful, side-effectful, and hard to reset or verify, while scalable mock environments only approximate real behavior. We present PhoneBuddy, a training recipe and open-model line for agentic phone use that combines a real-app environment with a mock-app environment, PhoneWorld, which reconstructs runnable mock apps from real GUI usage structure. PhoneBuddy first builds a shared supervised fine-tuning stage from trajectories collected in both environments, then compares real-app RL against mixed RL across both environments. Across a 150-task human evaluation on real phones spanning apps, mini-apps, and cross-app workflows, task success rate improves from 36.67% after supervised fine-tuning to 40.67% after real-app RL and 45.33% after mixed RL. On AndroidWorld, the same progression rises from 60.3% to 77.2% to 83.2%. These results show that mock-app training is not a replacement for real-app RL, but a complementary source of scalable, resettable, and automatically checked interaction. The gains are strongest on app and mini-app tasks, while long-horizontal cross-app workflows remain an important open challenge.