Organizations: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Zhejiang University · Ant Group · The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Abstract
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.
Thinking with images allows a multimodal model to compensate for limited perception by invoking visual tools through code. Yet the prevailing SFT-then-RL recipe creates a different supervision misalignment at each stage. SFT is expected to teach how to use tools, but trajectories from stronger teachers may succeed through perceptual capabilities that a smaller student cannot reliably reproduce or exploit, causing the student to imitate tool-call patterns without learning how to make them useful. RL is expected to teach when to use tools, but outcome-only rewards make fallible tool execution a liability and suppress tool use, whereas a blanket bonus for every correct tool-using trajectory encourages valid but ineffective operations. To address these two misalignments, we introduce ToolVision. During SFT, a multi-agent pipeline explores candidate trajectories, and a committee including student-scale models scores stepwise evidence gain to rank and prune the search branches. Only successfully executed trajectories with correct final answers are retained for SFT. Before RL, ToolVision compares the learner's performance with and without tools, then rewards successful tool use only on questions where tools provide a clear benefit. Both signals are constructed automatically from public task data without additional human annotations of tool use or necessity. ToolVision-8B improves over its base on all seven main benchmarks, surpasses Thyme-7B, CodeVision-8B, and CodeDance-7B on all three high-resolution benchmarks, and outperforms Qwen3-VL-32B-Thinking on V* and HRBench 8K. We will publicly release the datasets and source code.
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.
Agentic multimodal reasoning extends passive image understanding by allowing VLMs to actively acquire and refine visual evidence through visual tool interactions. Effective visual tool use requires three capabilities: grounding tool calls in visual context, composing tools across multiple steps, and adapting reasoning to tool-returned observations. However, existing approaches largely focus on grounding within fixed tool spaces and rigid invocation patterns, leaving composition and adaptation insufficiently addressed. We present VC-Tooler, which learns visual tool use as a compositional and adaptive capability. To this end, we first build a trajectory bank through a hierarchical synthesis pipeline covering three capability levels: single-tool grounding, multi-tool composition, and diverse tool contexts and interfaces. We then train the model in two stages: a supervised cold start that establishes these capabilities, followed by reinforcement learning that encourages accurate, efficient, and context-aware visual tool use. VC-Tooler achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source models on both general-purpose and agentic benchmarks, including 95.8% on V* and 35.3% on VTC-Bench, and shows promising transfer under richer tool settings at inference time. Project page: https://w1zheng.github.io/VC-Tooler