PluginEval: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Fine-Grained Error Attribution in Function Calling
Authors: Dongjie Xu, Julius, Hanchi Dong, Minghua Tang, Yuxuan Sun, Ziwei Nie, Zicheng Liu, Dujun Qing, +1 more
Organizations: Soochow University · Tencent Inc. · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Jiangnan University · Nanjing University · Xiaohongshu Inc. · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Reliable evaluation of tool routing is critical as Large Language Models increasingly operate as autonomous agents. Current benchmarks face three structural limitations: data distributions that follow a power law leave rare scenarios underrepresented; the absence of adversarial hard negatives obscures performance differences across models; and annotation pipelines depend on LLM judgments that have not been validated through execution. In this paper, we introduce PluginEval, a benchmark constructed through a two-stage framework that systematically mitigates these limitations. First, we formulate tool routing as a sequence of three decisions and separate generation from verification. LLMs propose candidate calls, while deterministic validation and real API execution provide reliable quality signals. Second, we decompose each plugin by capability, intent, and boundary to identify trigger and exclusion scenarios. We then generate queries at different difficulty levels to fill coverage gaps, including adversarial negatives targeting three failure modes, and return them to the first stage for annotation. This process creates a closed loop that iterates until coverage converges. For evaluation, we move beyond aggregate accuracy. An LLM judge anchored to gold annotations classifies failures as missed calls, spurious calls, or parameter errors, producing a detailed error profile for each model. We evaluate five model families, including proprietary models and models with open weights, analyze their performance across difficulty levels and error categories, and validate the judge through agreement with human annotations.
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.
Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, but this assumption has rarely been validated against human annotation. We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains, nine production LLMs, and a 100-label human-validated subset. We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation. Substring-based judging agrees with human annotation at kappa=0.049 (chance-level); a three-LLM ensemble reaches kappa=0.432 (moderate) with a conservative bias. Under validated evaluation, a parameter-level injection propagates to a wrong final answer with human-calibrated probability approximately 0.62 (range 0.46-0.73 across models). Rejection (catching bad parameters) and recovery (correcting after acceptance) are independent model capabilities (Spearman rho=0.126, p=0.747). A tuned runtime interceptor reduces hallucination on GPT-4o-mini by 23.0 percentage points under a concurrent n=600 control, but shows no significant effect on Gemini-2.0-Flash, whose aggressive parameter rejection eliminates the target failure mode. All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at https://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench.
Planning is central to LLM agents: before acting, an agent must decompose goals, select tools, reason over constraints, and decide when a task is infeasible. Yet existing agent evaluations often report only end-to-end success, making it difficult to determine whether failures stem from planning or execution. We introduce Agent Planning Benchmark (APB), a planning-specific diagnostic benchmark with 4,209 multimodal cases across 22 domains and five settings, covering holistic planning, feedback-conditioned step-wise planning, and robustness under extraneous tools, broken tools, and unsolvable tasks. Across 12 MLLMs, APB reveals systematic weaknesses in long-horizon planning, tool-noise robustness, calibrated refusal, and inference-time refinement. We further validate APB on 200 ToolSandbox tasks and 200 τ2-bench tasks, where APB-guided refinement consistently improves plan correctness, plan grade, and downstream execution metrics across three representative models. APB thus serves as an upstream diagnostic complement to execution benchmarks. The APB benchmark and code are available in \href{https://github.com/Mikivishy/AgentPlanningBenchmark}{this URL}.