An agentic request spends substantial wall-clock time waiting for tools, and its KV cache holds GPU memory the whole time. Serving systems decide whether that cache stays, leaves, or comes back by guessing how long the tool will run, from the tool's name, its history, a duration declared before the call, or the engine's own occupancy. We show that no estimate fixed before a call starts can know its duration, and such estimates may not even rank the calls. Meanwhile, the running tool already holds the answer, but the agent stack together with the tool silences it. We propose that tool calls report their progress explicitly while they run, and we measure what that takes. A census of four public agent corpora finds a readable signal in most tool time once it is revealed, in two strengths: a fraction of the work remaining, or an accurate signal that the end is near. A harness recovers it without changing what the agent sees, at no measurable cost to the agent's benchmark score. At the points where a KV cache decision is made, the reported progress is between several times and an order of magnitude more accurate than the best published predictors, and it stays accurate when the environment changes. Plugged into a production engine through a few small hints, it cuts the p90 time to first token (TTFT) after a tool call by 20.7% (HBM only) and 20.8% (HBM + DRAM) against LRU, close to an oracle. A serving system should not guess what its tools can tell it.
Tool-augmented LLM agents tend to call tools indiscriminately, even when the model can answer directly. Each unnecessary call wastes API fees and latency, yet no existing benchmark systematically studies when a tool call is actually needed. We propose When2Tool, a benchmark of 18 environments (15 single-hop, 3 multi-hop) spanning three categories of tool necessity -- computational scale, knowledge boundaries, and execution reliability -- each with controlled difficulty levels that create a clear decision boundary between tool-necessary and tool-unnecessary tasks. We evaluate two families of training-free baselines: Prompt-only (varying the prompt to discourage unnecessary calls) and Reason-then-Act (requiring the model to reason about tool necessity before acting). Both provide limited control: Prompt-only suppresses necessary calls alongside unnecessary ones, and Reason-then-Act still incurs a disproportionate accuracy cost on hard tasks. To understand why these baselines fail, we probe the models' hidden states and find that tool necessity is linearly decodable from the pre-generation representation with AUROC 0.89--0.96 across six models, substantially exceeding the model's own verbalized reasoning. This reveals that models already know when tools are needed, but fail to act on this knowledge during generation. Building on this finding, we propose Probe&Prefill, which uses a lightweight linear probe to read the hidden-state signal and prefills the model's response with a steering sentence. Across all models tested, Probe&Prefill reduces tool calls by 48% with only 1.7% accuracy loss, while the best baseline at comparable accuracy only reduces 6% of tool calls, or achieves a similar tool call reduction but incurs a 5× higher accuracy loss. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/when2tool
Tool-augmented language agents speculatively issue likely future tool calls to hide latency, but those calls leak inferred user intent to external services before the agent commits to the branch. Every external observer that received the call retains the disclosure after the agent abandons the branch. Timing is the issue, not authorization: no commit-time cleanup, read-only restriction, or access-control allow-list unsends what an observer already holds. We call these invocations ghost tool calls and propose Speculative Tool Privacy Contracts, a runtime abstraction that treats observation before commitment as a first-class effect, distinct from state mutation. We implement the contracts in a prototype runtime and evaluate twelve policies across three corpora. Speculative dispatch increases what an observer can infer about user intent; post-hoc filters, read-only restrictions, and access-control allow-lists leave that inference intact; only issue-time policies that change or suppress the speculative call's argument or destination projection before dispatch reduce it.
Multi-agent tool calling is becoming the dominant interaction pattern for LLM-based systems, yet existing inference frameworks treat each tool call as an independent request, re-processing the entire conversation from scratch even though 85-95% of the prompt is unchanged from the previous turn. We present a stateful inference architecture that converts the O(nt) per-turn cost of conventional serving into an O(Δt) delta-only cost: a persistent KV cache lives across turns and advances by ingesting only the new tokens, while a radix prefix cache extends this across interleaved multi-agent traffic and a prompt-lookup speculative decoder accelerates structured output. Against vLLM and SGLang on novel, fully-generated workloads, the reference implementation is 2.1× faster per turn on a 6-turn agentic workflow and 4.2× on the median turn of a 35-turn one, halving end-to-end wall time. The advantage comes from stateful reuse and speculation, not caching.