The Default Trap: Rethinking Plan Evaluation in Tool-Using LLM Agents

Large language models (LLMs) enable agents to solve long-horizon tasks by generating a plan and then executing it in an environment. However, successful planning requires two distinct capabilities: selecting an appropriate plan for the task and executing it faithfully. Existing planner--executor systems can fail at either stage, while final task success alone cannot distinguish selection from execution failures. We therefore study the Plan Declaration--Execution Gap and introduce Planning-as-Routing, where an LLM declares one of four planning modes: Predefined, Sequential, Hierarchical, or Search, and a deterministic router dispatches the task to the corresponding pattern-specific executor. Across four benchmarks and three LLMs, we find three consistent patterns. First, generic Plan+ReAct often fails to preserve declared planning structure, especially for longer plans: across three benchmarks, only (22)--(45%) of trajectories preserve it, whereas pattern-specific executors enforce the intended structure. Second, planning-mode effectiveness varies across environments and models: Search performs best on ALFWorld, Hierarchical on SWE-bench, and the strongest pattern can vary across models within the same benchmark. Third, the largest gains come from execution: pattern-specific executors improve task success from (0.48) to (0.92) on ALFWorld and from (0.36) to (0.44) on SWE-bench Verified over Plan+ReAct. Current LLMs, however, do not reliably select the strongest mode for each task, although few-shot examples improve selection in some benchmark--model combinations. Overall, reliable agent planning requires both effective mode selection and faithful execution: routing substantially closes the execution gap, while task-specific mode selection remains open.

Despite recent advances, LLM-based web agents still struggle with limited exploration, omission of critical steps, and sensitivity to task constraints. Prior work suggests that many of these failures stem from weaknesses in planning, yet the impact of alternative natural language plan representation remains unexplored. To address this, we introduce PlanAhead, a static planner-executor framework that evaluates the impact of plan representation in agent performance. We first automatically categorize WebArena tasks into 3 difficulty levels, enabling consistent difficulty grading without human annotation. Then we systematically evaluate 4 different plan representations on the tasks categorized as hard: sequential subgoals, narrative, pseudocode, and checklist; across different families of multimodal LLM powered agents (OpenAI, Alibaba, and Google). To account for stochastic variability, we introduce two novel evaluation metrics: Achievement Rate (AR) and Solved-Task Consistency (STC). Our results show that both, the plan formulation and the underlying LLM generating the plan, significantly influence web-agent robustness and task success.

Large language model (LLM) agents are evolving from tool-calling systems that execute isolated instructions into task-oriented agents that pursue user goals through sustained, multi-step interactions. However, existing benchmarks for personalized tool use largely assess isolated calls or reactive execution, leaving unclear whether agents can formulate, execute, and revise an explicit plan while preserving user preferences throughout long-term interaction. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{PDEU-Bench} (\textbf{P}ersonalized plan \textbf{D}efinition, plan \textbf{E}xecution, and plan \textbf{U}pdate \textbf{Bench}mark), a benchmark for evaluating the complete planning lifecycle of personalized tool-using agents. PDEU-Bench comprises 214 long-horizon interaction tasks spanning 12 everyday domains and 94 tools, with stage-specific assessments of preference adherence and plan quality. Extensive evaluations of 15 representative open-source and closed-source LLMs reveal a pronounced gap between local tool execution and dynamic planning: LLMs can often instantiate preferences in individual calls, yet struggle to construct coherent plan definition and plan update. We further evaluate mainstream personalization and memory-augmentation methods. Although these methods improve particular stages, none of the evaluated methods reliably propagates user preferences throughout the complete lifecycle, and their gains frequently fail to transfer to subsequent execution. Fine-grained error analysis further reveals that preference omissions and conflicts persist throughout the planning lifecycle, highlighting the need for future research to parameterize LLMs with preference-aware information retrieval and memory capabilities. We provide the relevant code and data in the appendix to support future research.