The "thinking-with-images" paradigm equips multimodal LLMs with active visual operations such as crop-and-zoom. However, models using these operations often achieve only marginal or negative gains over direct inference at substantially higher token cost. They may also repeatedly crop irrelevant regions and fail on questions that direct inference answers correctly. We ask whether the returned visual evidence causally affects the answer. To answer this question, we formulate visual tool-use as a causal graph that separates observation-mediated paths from action-induced shortcuts. We then audit it through interventions at the three levels: policy (comparing tool-use with direct inference), trajectory (corrupting all observations during rollout), and step (counterfactually replacing one individual observation under a fixed prefix). Our step-level estimand, Visual Evidence Gain, isolates the contribution of each returned observation. Across six representative models and five fine-grained perception benchmarks, we uncover policy miscalibration with two failure modes. In Calling Without Looking, returned observations have no causal effect on the answer. In Looking Without Planning, observations are informative but the call schedule is incoherent. A trajectory-level diagnostic decomposes the policy-level accuracy gain into per-group contributions and shows that the gain is concentrated in a Calibrated minority. We term this discrepancy the illusion of visual tool-use: despite aggregate accuracy gains, visual tool-use is not causally effective across a broad range of rollouts. The code is available at https://github.com/OpenCausaLab/CauAudit.
Visual tool use has emerged as a fundamental capability for multimodal agents to actively acquire evidence beyond a fixed image encoding. The prevailing recipe learns this capability from teacher-generated trajectories filtered for answer correctness, implicitly assuming that every successful demonstration provides effective supervision. We argue this assumption is flawed: a strong teacher often reaches the correct answer without needing its tool calls, and imitating such trajectories teaches a student that tool calls accompany correct answers, not that tool observations ground them. We present OpenVisTool, an open framework for constructing instructive visual tool-use trajectories that provide effective supervision for tool learning. The key insight is that a trajectory should be retained only if its answer is correct (outcome validity) and its tool observations causally contribute to that answer (causal utility). The framework operates in three stages: difficulty screening to select queries that are not reliably answerable without tools, domain-specific trajectory synthesis to elicit coherent tool-use trajectories, and supervision verification to jointly test both conditions. Rather than encouraging models to imitate tool calls, the resulting supervision teaches when and how visual evidence should be acquired. Using this framework, we construct OpenVisTool-42K, a dataset spanning five visual reasoning domains, together with OpenVisTool-Bench, a benchmark covering the same domains. Across four backbones (4B-27B), fine-tuning on OpenVisTool-42K consistently improves visual tool-use performance and yields gains on two out-of-distribution benchmarks; the larger models approach leading closed-source systems. The evidence suggests that effective visual tool use is learned from causally grounded supervision rather than tool-calling patterns.
Tool-augmented vision-language models increasingly "think with images": they call crop, zoom, or code tools and reason over the returned pixels. However, recent work using blind tests, gain decompositions, and attention analyses has shown that returned images contribute little, raising the question: if pixels do not carry the gain, what does? We hypothesize that the load-bearing signal is the structured text emitted before any returned pixel arrives: tool name, coordinates, target description, and intent. This textual scaffold encodes where to look and what to find. We introduce TextCall (call-but-no-return) to test this: it keeps the scaffold but replaces returned images with the text placeholder [Image output skipped]. Three studies support the hypothesis. (i) Non-necessity of returned pixels: across LoRA, full fine-tuning, and RL, TextCall matches or exceeds full thinking-with-images; under RL it preserves tool use at the reported checkpoint, avoiding the failure mode where, under matched settings, seeing the returned image causes the model to stop calling tools and answer directly. (ii) Sufficiency of the scaffold: on matched training queries, scaffold-only input yields equivalent accuracy to returned-image input. (iii) Component specificity: decomposing the scaffold into reasoning text and spatial code shows both components contribute, with the dominant one varying by task. Together these results support the Tool-Call Scaffold Hypothesis: in current thinking-with-images distributions, the active signal is the structured text emitted at tool-call time; the returned image is a redundant carrier. TextCall preserves accuracy while reducing latency by 29-46% and eliminating tool-execution API calls. Our claims hold for current thinking-with-images benchmarks; constructing tasks where pixels are genuinely load-bearing remains an open direction.
Multimodal large language models increasingly use sketches, annotations, tools, and intermediate images during reasoning, but it remains unclear whether they truly rely on these visual states. Existing benchmarks are limited both by task collections with narrow coverage or partially text-solvable samples and by evaluations that emphasize final answers without diagnosing how intermediate visual states are generated, rendered, and used. We introduce See2Think, a unified evaluation framework comprising See2ThinkBench and Visual Action-of-Thought (VAoT). See2ThinkBench contains 1,200 open-ended, visually dependent problems across 12 task categories spanning 2D structured, 3D scene, and real-world reasoning. VAoT records textual thoughts, visual actions, rendered states, and subsequent reasoning under four controlled inference settings. Evaluating representative proprietary and open-source multimodal models, we find that visual reasoning is strongly model- and environment-dependent, with no single setting consistently dominating across tasks. Process analysis further shows that models usually select relevant visual operations, while faithful rendering remains the clearest bottleneck and high feedback uptake does not necessarily translate into accuracy gains. Under task-relevant corrupted feedback, models exhibit behavioral dependence on visual states, with accuracy dropping by over 10 percentage points in controlled interventions.