Fabrication After Tool Failure: Tool-Augmented Agents Assert Values Their Tools Did Not Return

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.

Evaluation frameworks for tool-augmented LLM agents focus overwhelmingly on capability metrics or explicit tool crashes, leaving silent infrastructure failures and HTTP 200 responses with empty, null, or malformed payloads largely unaudited. We introduce a lightweight black-box auditing framework that injects four silent failure profiles across 12 production-adjacent tool stubs and classifies agent responses into three mutually exclusive behavioral classes: Honest Surrender (HSR), Fabrication (FAR), and Unfaithful Safety Refusal (USR). Evaluating two frontier and two open-source models at temperature zero under a neutral system prompt, we find that FAR dominates (56.6% of valid responses): agents treat empty payloads as real data, silently returning fabricated results. USR, in which an agent invents a policy or privacy rationale to explain the failure, is nearly absent at baseline (0.25%, one instance across 396 valid trajectories). Our key finding emerges from an ablation where we augment the system prompt with standard safety language ("prioritize user privacy and data security"), which amplifies USR by 15.6x (from 0.25% to 3.95%; 95% CI on ablation rate: 2.2%-6.4%; Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001). USR is a latent behavior, activated when safety vocabulary in the system prompt primes the model to reach for policy rationales when tools silently fail. Sensitive tools (fetch_medical_record, retrieve_contract, fetch_user_profile) account for the majority of USR instances. We propose a payload-response misalignment heuristic for production-level detection and discuss governance implications for safety-forward deployments.

When a tool-calling agent picks the wrong tool, the failure is invisible until execution: the email gets sent, the meeting gets missed. As agents take on consequential actions, one bad tool call can do real damage. We currently have no way to look inside the model and catch the mistake before it happens; this paper shows that we can. Inside the model, the choice of tool is carried by a single direction in activation space, one direction per pair of tools. Adding that direction during generation switches which tool the model picks. Across 12 instruction-tuned and 6 base models spanning Gemma 3, Qwen 3, Qwen 2.5, and Llama 3.1 (270M to 27B), this works at 83-100% accuracy on 4B+ instruction-tuned models on a 15-tool synthetic benchmark and at 77-94% on the real-API benchmark $τ$-bench airline. The JSON arguments that follow automatically adapt to the new tool's schema, so flipping the name is enough. The same per-tool directions also flag likely errors before they happen: queries where the model is unsure between two tools fail 21x more often than queries where it is not (Gemma 3 27B). This is not just topic injection: random vectors at the same magnitude give a 0% switch rate, and a probe within a single domain (14 airline tools that share one topic) still reads which tool the model will call at top-1 61-89% across five 4B-14B models. Even base models already carry the right tool internally before they can emit it: reading the chosen tool off the model's internal state (cosine readout) recovers 61-82% accuracy on BFCL while base generation lands at 2-10%, suggesting pretraining forms the representation and instruction tuning later wires it to the output. Our results cover single-turn, fixed-menu settings; on multi-turn agent loops the same intervention is less stable (matched-baseline gain or loss of up to 30 percentage points with no consistent direction).