Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents

Tool-using agents are usually scored on whether they finish a task while the tools work. Deployments are less forgiving: services time out, endpoints disappear, parameter names change, and results come back well formed but wrong. Prior work has shown that language models over-trust tool outputs that fail silently; we ask how that over-trust plays out across the stages of failure handling in multi-turn agents. Wrapping the executable environments of an established function-calling benchmark in a fault-injection layer, we inject one of four typed faults at a controlled point in the trajectory and record whether the agent notices, changes plan, recovers the task, or repeats itself. Six models from three families, half of them reasoning variants, ran 1,920 trials over 24 multi-step tasks. Agents treat a failure as a problem in 91.3% of trials when the tool returns an explicit error, but in 58.8% of trials when it returns a plausible wrong value, against a 26.8% rate of reporting problems when nothing was wrong. Reasoning models are not better placed: paired against instruct siblings, they notice less (-9.3 points, p < .001) and change plan more (+10.4 points, p < .001), and recovery is unchanged (p = .512). Because agents are stochastic, two fault-free runs of the same task end in the same state only 63.3% of the time; against that baseline, only a missing tool clearly lowers recovery (39.9%), while timeouts, schema drift, and corruption stay within run-to-run variation. After a fault, agents return to the same tool three or more times in a row in up to 22.2% of trials, though strictly identical repeats are rare. A prompt line asking the agent to check each result did not move detection. Agents respond to the error channel rather than to the content of what a tool returns, so failures that stay inside the expected format pass through.

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.

Agent harnesses record a failed tool call and its error message in the transcript and ask the model to continue, on the assumption that the error is corrective information. We measure whether it is. Defining the corrective gain of a failure record as the change in log-probability of re-emitting the action that just failed, we find the gain is negative for every instruction-tuned model we tested (6 checkpoints, 135M-1.7B, 4 families) in two environments: simulated tool calling and MBPP program repair. Normalised by action length the effect is about -1.03 nats per action token, a factor of 2.8 in the odds of each token, and holds on 90%-100% of individual items, not only on average. Over a fixed candidate set the probability of repeating the failed call rises from 0.06 to 0.54, and greedy decoding reproduces it token for token on 19% of items after the failure versus 0% before. Counterfactuals pairing the same call with a failure message, a success message, or a neutral acknowledgement separate two effects: the failed call's surface form accounts for 83% of the damage, while the semantic contribution of marking it failed is small and inconsistent in sign across environments. The problem is in the harness, not the model's grasp of error messages, and that predicts which remedies work. Replacing the verbatim call with a runtime-generated description of the failure removes 76% of the inversion at no token cost, and making previously-failed strings unreachable at the decoder acts on the same term. Two plausible remedies do not: an explicit "do not repeat" instruction leaves the measured quantity where it was, and deleting the failed attempt to retry from a clean context, the standard prescription for context contamination, is the worst harness we measured for repetition, because it restores the context that produced the failure. The study runs end to end on a CPU; all artefacts are released.