Agents' Overreliance on Unreliable Tools

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly interleave natural language reasoning with external tools such as web search and code execution. These tool-use policies are often optimized via reinforcement learning (RL), which can amplify spurious correlations in the training data. In this work, we study when and why RL-trained agents learn shortcut tool-selection policies: invoking tools based on superficial prompt cues rather than genuine task requirements. We construct controlled synthetic environments combining factual question answering and mathematical reasoning tasks, and inject cues that are strongly correlated with specific tools during training but causally irrelevant to tool necessity. Across counterfactual evaluations where cues are present but the associated tools are not required, agents exhibit substantial shortcut behavior, with spurious tool invocation rates increasing by up to 39 percent. However, shortcut formation is not universal: across the conditions we test, it arises only when the agent has already learned to use the target tool reliably, suggesting that task competence, rather than dataset imbalance alone, is a key factor in shortcut learning. A swapped-cue analysis further shows that semantic alignment between cues and tools substantially amplifies this effect. To mitigate these failures, we introduce a dense, decision-level reward in which an LLM judge evaluates the necessity of each tool call. This tool-necessity reward effectively suppresses cue-driven tool use while preserving task performance, providing a practical approach to improving the robustness of LLM agent tool-use policies.

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.

Tool-augmented agents are typically evaluated by their gains under reliable external feedback. Yet these gains leave open a key counterfactual: when feedback is unreliable, would the agent be better off receiving no task evidence? We study this question with a controlled matched-loop comparison that fixes the agent loop, prompt, action space, and decoding, while varying only the returned observation: faithful, misleading, or absent. Across question answering and fact verification, persistent misleading feedback produces a value inversion: agents that benefit from clean tools can perform worse than the matched no-feedback fallback. On HotpotQA, Qwen2.5-7B reaches 44.8 F1 with clean retrieval and 22.3 F1 with no feedback, but drops to 4.7 F1 under shuffled retrieval. The inversion persists under stronger clean retrieval and locally plausible distractors, but weakens when later clean evidence can repair the trajectory. Early trajectory signals predict many failures, yet simple repairs remain fallback-limited: rejecting bad evidence helps only when the exposed fallback is reliable. These results show that clean-tool gains can overstate tool value, and that matched no-feedback fallback controls are necessary for evaluating tool-augmented agents.