ToolRosetta: Surface-Form Invariance of Tool-Call Guards

Step-level guards decide, before each tool call, whether an agent's next action is safe given the user's request and the trajectory so far. Users write those requests in many languages, while guard prompts and the benchmarks on which purpose-built guards are trained and evaluated are English. We ask whether a guard's verdict depends on the language of the request. We build LinguaGuardBench from the 1,220 labelled steps of TS-Bench AgentDojo-Traj: we translate only the user instruction into German, French, Turkish, Swahili and Amharic, and keep every tool call, observation and label byte-identical, so any change in a verdict is attributable to language alone. Six English rewordings and a whitespace placebo serve as controls, and managed guards are run three times to measure their noise. Across 19 guards, from frontier APIs to 4B open models and four purpose-built agent guards, most open, small and purpose-built guards change verdicts under translation beyond their own noise floor, and the effect grows with the rarity of the language: among the nine guards below 13B parameters, the mean placebo-adjusted flip rate rises from +1.5 pp on French to +4.4 pp on Amharic. Purpose-built guards are the most sensitive. The direction of the damage tends to follow guard size: open guards of 12-30B parameters block more benign steps (up to +5.0 pp false positives), and every significant loss of recall is in a guard below 10B (up to -7.4 pp). Frontier guards shift by at most about one point; the strongest, Gemini 3.8 Flash, returns identical verdicts with and without the request. The damage is concentrated in a few instructions and, in a post-hoc analysis, falls on steps where the agent's reasoning restates the English request, consistent with guards reacting to inconsistency between channels. English paraphrase moves every guard less than translation does. We release the benchmark and all 489k verdicts.

LLM-based agents extend their capabilities through third-party skills that provide task-specific instructions, scripts, and tool-use procedures. However, malicious instructions inserted into an otherwise benign skill can cause a benign user request to trigger dangerous Tool Calls, including data exfiltration, file deletion, or unauthorized code execution. This paper presents ActionGuard, which inspects skill-influenced Tool Calls immediately before execution. ActionGuard separates the target agent's action-generation context from the safeguard's authorization context. The target agent may use the original skill for planning, but the Reviewer does not receive the potentially poisoned raw skill text. Instead, it determines whether each action is justified by the trusted user request using a balanced skill profile, current and recent Tool Calls, and local script contents. ActionGuard intercepts each Tool Call at OpenClaw's before-tool-call stage and enforces the Reviewer's ALLOW or DENY decision under a fail-closed policy. We evaluate ActionGuard on 139 contextual and 180 obvious injections in a SKILL-INJECT-based setting against Dynamic Guardian and SkillGuard, using three open-source and two commercial Reviewer models. Each condition is repeated three times and evaluated using Attack Success Rate (ASR) and Task Success Rate (TSR). Overall, ActionGuard reduced ASR by 35.54 to 46.11 percent relative to existing safeguards and by 70.44 percent relative to No Safeguard, while maintaining high benign-task completion. These results show that execution-boundary authorization grounded in trusted user intent and runtime evidence can restrict unauthorized Tool Calls induced by skill injection.

Tool-using language agents turn model decisions into external side effects: they read files, run scripts, call APIs, send messages, and invoke Model Context Protocol tools. This makes agent attacks different from jailbreaks. The harmful step is often not an obviously forbidden output, but an ordinary executable action that becomes unsafe because attacker-controlled context steers authorized access against the user's interest. We identify this failure mode as authority confusion: untrusted resources may inform reasoning, but they must not authorize side effects. We present AIRGuard, a runtime guard that operationalizes least privilege as action-time authorization. AIRGuard normalizes heterogeneous tool calls, derives task authority into step-level authority, tracks source and target trust, simulates sensitive side effects, audits cross-step risk, and enforces decisions before actions execute. On AgentTrap, AIRGuard reduces Sonnet 4.6 attack success from 36.3% without defense to 5.5%. On DTAP-150, AIRGuard preserves 76.0% benign utility with Haiku 4.5, compared with 52.0% for ARGUS and 42.0% for MELON. An ablation further shows that prompt-only policy helps only modestly, whereas a dedicated runtime authority-control layer gives the agent system direct control over tool-mediated side effects. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Sophie508/AIRGuard.