AOS-Bench: Can LLM Agents Manage Dynamic Workloads?

LLM agents increasingly solve tasks by invoking multiple tools, where parallel execution is essential for low latency but difficult to manage safely. Existing agent benchmarks primarily evaluate tool selection, argument generation, and end-to-end success under mostly serial execution, largely overlooking valid parallelization and resource-constrained scheduling. This missing scheduling dimension creates a practical failure mode: serial execution is safe but slow, while resource-agnostic parallel execution is fast but prone to avoidable resource overflows. To address this gap, we introduce PeakBench, a benchmark of executable multi-tool workflows with execution-grounded dependency annotations and measured resource profiles. A central challenge in evaluating such workflows is attribution: failures and inefficiencies may arise from incorrect dependency planning, poor resource-constrained scheduling, or both. PeakBench addresses this challenge with a two-part evaluation framework that disentangles logical planning from physical scheduling, with dedicated metrics for each dimension. Using this framework, we show that strong logical planning does not reliably translate into safe or efficient execution under resource constraints. We further show that exposing resource information can reduce avoidable overflows and improve resource utilization, making PeakBench a useful testbed for diagnosing resource-aware agent behavior. Code is available at https://github.com/Czzzk/Staggering-the-Peaks.

LLM-based AI agents process user requests through iterative reasoning and tool execution, often involving the invocation of remote LLM APIs with local tool containers. This execution model can make the optimization of agent serving difficult because latency, local resource demand, and container bottlenecks inter-mix across requests. However, the current agent ecosystem runs without much consideration of resource dynamics, which results in significant waste of the precious resources. This paper analyzes the resource inter-mix of AI agents for three representative tasks: retrieval-augmented question answering, web search, and software coding. To this end, we characterize the latency with respect to the resource dynamics of processing multiple requests and tasks concurrently. Our measurements show that agents have a wide range of behaviors depending on tasks, so that even the same tool can differ substantially in resource dynamics. We also find that running multiple requests concurrently exposes task-dependent bottlenecks in resource dynamics such as CPU, disk I/O, and memory. Furthermore, we uncover that faster LLM responses or more CPU cores do not always accelerate agents. Based on these observations, we demonstrate new optimization opportunities that exploit the resource dynamics of tasks: CPU-aware tool admission and task-aware CPU allocation. Our results show that the latency of CPU-sensitive agent tasks improves $\sim$5.4$\times$, and the average latency across multiple tasks is reduced $\sim$32% compared to native agents.

Production large language-model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed not as lone problem-solvers but as managers: a main model creates specialized subagents, delegates work, and orchestrates their parallel, asynchronous returns through dynamic workflows. Whether one model can actually run such a team is largely unmeasured: existing benchmarks score a policy's own task-solving or a fixed multi-agent system's emergent behavior, but none isolate the management ability of the single LLM acting as leader. We introduce ClawArena-Team, a benchmark of 41 multi-turn, multimodal, multi-directory scenarios spanning 258 evaluation rounds and 72 staged updates that measures this management ability. The main agent is deliberately constrained: it natively perceives only text and directly accesses only part of the workspace. It commands a fixed, locally served subagent pool, so score differences reflect management skill, not raw capability. All scoring is execution-based with no LLM judge: an overall score -- the Subagent-Management Score (SMS) -- multiplies task correctness by a least-privilege and modality-routing factor. Across twelve proprietary, community-hosted, and self-hosted models, experiments show that the management bottleneck is privilege granting rather than perception (no model exceeds 50% workspace-permission precision); that cost and management quality are decoupled (API cost spans over 100 times while the overall score spans under 4 times, with the cheapest open models on the Pareto frontier); and that most leaderboard scores cluster within a 9.9-point band while orchestration behaviors diverge by more than an order of magnitude. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/ClawArena.