Measuring and Reducing Unusable Replies of LLM Agents

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.

When an LLM agent misbehaves, a human steps in, and that intervention is usually discarded or replayed as training data. We treat it instead as a measurement: a label pointing at the internal computation that failed. We study it in a controlled agent environment, on one failure (asking a clarifying question when the request was already unambiguous), with labels from a rule-based overseer validated against blind human judgment. Claims cover eligible models, which both over-ask and sometimes act on matched unambiguous requests: five of thirteen qualified (Qwen2.5-3B, gemma-2-2b, OLMo-3-7B, Mistral-Nemo-12B, Phi-4). Four findings. First, the ask-vs-act decision is causally localizable in every eligible family: a direction learned from intervention labels flips 72-100% of held-out over-asks at a definite residual-stream depth, with site and dose chosen on training data, and random directions under the same procedure flip at most one episode. Second, over-asking has two mechanistic signatures: in four families the model demonstrably knows the request is unambiguous (the belief is decodable, causally inert and orthogonal to the decision) and asks anyway; in the fifth, the rare over-asks track different world-representations. Third, steering gated on a probe readout removes most of the simulated oversight burden while legitimate questions survive (bootstrap 95% intervals exclude zero); a prompt instruction makes it worse. Fourth, consolidating the fix into the weights yields a map, not a rule: on one model a LoRA confined to the causal band passes every criterion fixed in advance while behavior cloning on identical data breaks retention; on three families the reverse holds; on the fifth the outcome crosses the boundary across seeds. A geometric rule written down in advance to predict the regime failed on two out-of-family tests; we report the failure and stop rather than fit a replacement.

An LLM agent can recognize uncertainty yet still choose the wrong next step: asking when action is already justified, or seeking clarification when the constraints must change. We formalize actionable indeterminacy: act when an accepted action is shared across all admissible preferences or objectives, clarify when each possibility is feasible but no action is shared, and propose a minimum-cost permitted constraint repair when the request is infeasible. We construct a solver-grounded benchmark spanning object allocation, meeting scheduling, apartment choice, and stable matching. Matched pairs retain the same source while changing whether intervention is necessary, and evaluation separates decision correctness, matched-pair reliability, and fully correct responses. Our findings reveal a recurring difficulty in recognizing when intervention is unnecessary: models can identify situations requiring clarification or repair yet still intervene when a justified action already exists. Correct decision labels also fail to guarantee usable actions, questions, or repairs. Crucially, response requirements shape not only how decisions are expressed but also which decisions are made. Making the required content explicit substantially improves fully correct responses and can change intervention decisions, even when outputs are already parseable. These findings highlight that reliable agency requires more than recognizing uncertainty: it requires intervening only when necessary and translating the chosen next step into a verifiable response.