Tool

A coding agent must emit a valid tool call--a parseable invocation of a tool in the provided schema--before the harness can execute its chosen action. We study how local serving stacks affect this protocol step and show that measured outcomes can depend on the serving layer rather than model behavior alone. In Ollama, the default tools= request is gated per model by a static template flag: some models are accepted and return calls as text, some return native tool_calls, while Phi-3 and Gemma-3 are rejected before inference. In our harness, rejection and retry exhaustion are not preserved as structured failure metadata, so downstream analysis can misclassify them as model non-calls and naively report 0% fidelity. Adding a text tool list while retaining the native channel recovers much of the measured fidelity for accepted models, whereas a uniform text protocol reduces fidelity for Llama-3.2, which has native tool-call support. Cross-stack probes on Ollama, llama.cpp, vLLM, and SGLang show different handling of the same request. Constrained decoding removes parse failures but can induce non-termination, and turn-pooled versus per-instance estimates differ by up to about 55 points. We conclude with a checklist for treating serving behavior as part of the evaluation protocol.

Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents fail in a way no tool-selection or tool-security method addresses: they call tools that do not exist and pass arguments no schema declares. Existing defenses either pick the right tool (selection) or constrain what an agent may do with real tools (gating), both of which presuppose the emitted call refers to a real tool at all. We show this is a structural blind spot: a hallucinated call is by construction not a decision any gate made, so no gate can reject it. This paper is primarily a measurement and benchmark study. We give a five-class taxonomy of tool hallucination (H1-H5) and, as a reference point, the Resolution Rung: a training-free, closed-world resolver (registry membership plus a signature check) whose interest is where it must sit, not what it computes. We prove hallucination defense must precede any causal gate, and characterize the one irreducible residue (borrowed arguments schema-indistinguishable from a valid call). Across ten hosted models under two invocation surfaces we measure 322 genuine hallucinations; fabricated-tool calls concentrate on the unconstrained raw-JSON surface (34 vs. 3), and model scale does not help (a 675B model matches a 7-8B one). We then extend to the Model Context Protocol, where merging several servers into one namespace creates hallucination surfaces a single registry cannot express (a second taxonomy, M1-M5); on the live MCP surface we measure 154 hallucinations, including from frontier models that were clean on the single-registry surface, because collisions and shadowing are structural to the merge. We release the versioned Hallucinated-Tools Benchmark (HTB) so any resolver is comparable across submissions.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly interleave natural language reasoning with external tools such as web search and code execution. These tool-use policies are often optimized via reinforcement learning (RL), which can amplify spurious correlations in the training data. In this work, we study when and why RL-trained agents learn shortcut tool-selection policies: invoking tools based on superficial prompt cues rather than genuine task requirements. We construct controlled synthetic environments combining factual question answering and mathematical reasoning tasks, and inject cues that are strongly correlated with specific tools during training but causally irrelevant to tool necessity. Across counterfactual evaluations where cues are present but the associated tools are not required, agents exhibit substantial shortcut behavior, with spurious tool invocation rates increasing by up to 39 percent. However, shortcut formation is not universal: across the conditions we test, it arises only when the agent has already learned to use the target tool reliably, suggesting that task competence, rather than dataset imbalance alone, is a key factor in shortcut learning. A swapped-cue analysis further shows that semantic alignment between cues and tools substantially amplifies this effect. To mitigate these failures, we introduce a dense, decision-level reward in which an LLM judge evaluates the necessity of each tool call. This tool-necessity reward effectively suppresses cue-driven tool use while preserving task performance, providing a practical approach to improving the robustness of LLM agent tool-use policies.

In this study, we examine whether a general shell can outperform specialized tools on enterprise tasks. Shell-based agents have shown strong results in coding, but enterprise work also involves moving between applications and services, coordinating with coworkers, and performing professional analysis. We compare five tool interfaces on TheAgentCompany and APEX-Agents using Opus-4.8 and GPT-5.5: typed tools, typed tools plus bash, bash alone, bash with persistent agent-synthesized tools, and programmatic tool calling (PTC), which runs programs whose actions are restricted to a typed tool catalog. Bash alone outperforms typed tools on both benchmarks, improving score by 21.8-24.5 pp on TheAgentCompany and 4.8-7.4 pp on APEX-Agents while using 19-72% fewer total tokens. Adding typed tools or persistent tool synthesis to bash produces no detectable pooled score gain. PTC uses fewer tokens than direct typed calls with broadly similar task performance, but generally underperforms bash alone in both quality and cost efficiency. For enterprise practitioners, these results favor bash alone when arbitrary execution can be isolated and PTC when security or compliance policies require a fixed tool catalog.

Multi-tenant tools commonly accept a tenant identifier and validate it against the caller's entitlement. For a large language model (LLM) agent, that pattern delegates resource selection to a process whose context may contain attacker controlled instructions. We formalize this stochastic deputy problem and present a structural defense: remove tenant identity from the Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool schema, bind scope to a verified credential, and enforce it below the agent. In a 373-trial ablation across eight model configurations and two transports, a correctly validated tenant parameter served every out-of-scope attempt: 26 of 26, or 26 of 41 plausible-pretext trials overall. With the parameter removed, no tool signature could express the read. Twelve of 56 trials instead escaped the interface by forging writable scope, showing that interface invariance requires cryptographically protected context. On a production dataset containing multiple GBs of data, set-valued scope caused a measured $57\times$ latency ratio under function-wrapped membership predicates; a JSON_TABLE lateral join recovered index access where the tenant key was indexed. The evaluation also exposes deployment limits, including an entitlement-size query-planner cliff and incomplete index coverage. The result is a tenant-isolation argument that depends on enforceable interfaces and credentials rather than model compliance.

Tool-augmented language models are evaluated on whether they reach the right answer, not on whether they report honestly when a tool fails to supply one. We isolate this post-failure decision with a benchmark of 1,024 items spanning 16 internal-system domains and eight tool-failure types, in which a tool call is enforced and the returned payload is guaranteed to be unusable. Under a deployment-style system prompt, 14.10% of responses are dishonest: the model either asserts a value the payload cannot support or declines while citing a fabricated policy or capability limit. The rate is governed almost entirely by whether the failure is signalled. When the tool returns status:error, dishonesty is absent (0.0%); when it returns status:ok with a redacted, corrupted, stale, malformed, empty or truncated value, dishonesty reaches 45.3%. The behaviour is not an artefact of our prompts: it appears under a neutral prompt (10.17%) and under the shipped prompt of every production agent framework we evaluate, reaching 24.67% under CrewAI's, and none of the nine frameworks we audit specifies what the model should do when a tool fails. Comparing prompt-level defences, we find that the operative variable is not deference to tool output but the absence of a named failure state. Appending a single sentence that requires the model to emit retrieval_status: OK or FAILED before answering reduces dishonesty from 14.10% to 0.87%, with one item of 688 worsening against 92 improving, and transfers unchanged into three foreign agent scaffolds. The emitted flag is faithful in 99.7-99.9% of declarations, giving a runtime detector that needs only a regular expression.

Studies of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server ecosystem draw their samples in ways that quietly select for servers that work: reference sets, popularity lists, hand-curated frames, or pipelines that repair a server until it starts. We report what an unrepaired probability sample actually contains. From a 24,135-server registry census we draw 400 npm/stdio servers with a published seed and probe each one over the wire. Only 48.8% complete an initialize handshake, against 66.7% for a hand-curated frame measured with the same instrument, and the dominant failure is not missing credentials (13.3%) but servers that never start at all (37.5%). Among the 195 that do run, hard conformance is total: zero fatal JSON Schema violations across 2,766 advertised tools. Optional safety annotations are the real variance, and the tool-level omission rate on a random draw is 58.8% against 41.5% on the curated frame, so curation flatters this figure too. We then compare the tool descriptions these servers advertise against two tool-use benchmark corpora using one method held constant. Real MCP tools show 2.8% near-duplication at cosine 0.70, and all of it lies within single servers: cross-author near-duplication is 0.0% at every threshold tested. BFCL v4 shows 16.7%, of which 16.4 points lie between independently presented tasks. UltraTool shows 0.3%, cleaner than real tools, so this is a property of BFCL and not of synthetic corpora as a class. Separately, 68.8% of raw BFCL rows and 85.6% of raw UltraTool rows are exact name-plus-description repeats, against 0.4% for real MCP, so any statistic computed over these releases without global deduplication measures repetition rather than tools. All figures regenerate from released scripts and a published seed.

Audio deepfake detection is commonly formulated as clip-level binary classification of single-domain audio. However, real-world manipulated audio can exhibit mixed authenticity, where genuine and manipulated cues coexist across temporal transitions, overlapping sources, or both. This setting requires not only detecting manipulated audio but also localizing the components that provide evidence for the decision. We propose ToolDF, a tool-integrated reasoning framework for mixed-authenticity audio deepfake detection. ToolDF employs an audio large language model as an orchestrator trained with supervised tool-use trajectories. It adaptively analyzes the audio scene, selectively performs source separation, routes components to domain-specific experts, and aggregates their evidence into an interpretable verdict. We further introduce a mixed-authenticity ADD benchmark covering temporal transitions, acoustic overlaps, and hybrid mixtures. Experimental results show that ToolDF achieves the best overall performance on composite-type detection, achieving macro-F1 gains of 3.72 and 14.39 points over the strongest monolithic baseline and a fixed pipeline, respectively, while providing interpretable evidence localized to temporal regions and acoustic sources. Our source code and dataset are publicly available online.

Large language models (LLMs) augmented with external tools have demonstrated remarkable capability in solving complex real-world tasks. However, existing approaches suffer from two key challenges: brittle multi-step and multi-turn reasoning caused by incompatible tool output types and API schemas, and performance degradation under large tool catalogues. To address these, we introduce \textbf{Tool Primitives}, a design that replaces rigid API schema-based invocation with natural language as the interface for tool calling, where each tool is wrapped with an LLM interface that handles schema resolution and execution internally, enabling natural inter-tool communication for nested and multi-turn tool calling. Building on Tool Primitives, we host \textbf{ToolFace}, a centralized repository of 25,519 functions from which LLMs dynamically retrieve only the relevant tools at inference time, eliminating the need to enumerate raw API schemas in context. To orchestrate Tool Primitives and ToolFace reliably in complex settings, we further propose \textbf{HEART}, a \textbf{H}arness \textbf{E}ngineering framework via \textbf{A}gent-native, \textbf{R}eusable \textbf{T}ool Primitives, comprising a Planner, Router, and Verifier that jointly support dynamic tool invocation planning, multi-step execution, and feedback-driven recovery. Experiments on five benchmarks demonstrate that HEART outperforms SFT-based models by $10\%$ on average and surpasses GPT-5.4, Claude-4.6-Sonnet, and Gemini-3.1-Pro by $6\%$ on average while reducing API cost by up to $85\%$. On 50 real-world tasks, HEART achieves $84\%$ task completion, $3.8\times$ the average of three frontier commercial models ($22\%$).

Translation students need to learn both how to use translation technologies and how to judge the choices those technologies make available. This article presents LoopCAT, an Apache-2.0-licensed, local-first computer-assisted translation environment co-created with OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6, and proposes a framework connecting workflow competence, evaluative judgement, and technological agency. The account draws on repository history, implementation inspection, and the verification records of an identified development build. LoopCAT combines local project storage, translation memories, terminology, quality assurance, document exchange, and optional connections to local or hosted AI services. Its English, Catalan, and Turkish interface catalogs also make the application itself available as teaching material: students can translate English UI strings into another language, review the existing automatically generated target drafts, import their revisions, and test the interface. We organize these opportunities around four forms of participation: operating a workflow, evaluating outputs, inspecting and configuring mechanisms, and making or defending a bounded intervention. A six-session sequence, a UI-localization assignment, a placeholder example, and an assessment rubric specify how teachers could use the framework. The paper separates implemented capabilities from proposed educational benefits; it reports no new student-learning outcomes. It distinguishes the latest package checks from earlier regression evidence and sets out a protocol for classroom evaluation. LoopCAT provides an inspectable setting for teaching how translation decisions interact with data, interfaces, and software rules. Whether these activities improve judgement, transfer, or participation remains an empirical question.

LLM agents increasingly diagnose incidents and propose remediations. In a GitOps workflow, applying a fix means editing a version-controlled config file, and the obvious implementation, having the model author the edited file or a diff, is what practitioners reach for first. Evaluating that choice on real Kubernetes manifests, we find no text-generation strategy is safe for unattended automation. Unified diffs are unsafe: under strict patching almost none apply, but that is an artifact, since a tolerant tool (GNU patch) applies 96%, yet silently misapplies about 1 in 7 (14-20%) with no error signal. Full-file rewrite is capability-dependent: a small model corrupts the file, while a frontier model is usually correct but non-deterministic (it silently drops a field or edits a neighbor on some runs) and must regenerate the whole file, costing O(file size) per edit. We present an alternative that separates the semantic decision (which resource, field, and value) from the syntactic act of editing the file. The agent emits only a structured field-change intent; a deterministic pipeline indexes manifests by (kind, name), locates the target scalar's exact character span via the YAML parser's node position marks, and replaces only that span in the raw text. Because the file is never re-serialized, the diff is minimal by construction, formatting and comments are preserved, and the edit is correct and deterministic independent of the model, at O(1) generation cost. The contribution is the pairing of an LLM-proposed intent with a deterministic, fail-closed application contract for GitOps. We implement it in KubeAstra (Apache-2.0) and release the benchmark. Our claim is scoped to faithful application of a known change; whether the change is right is left to human PR review.

Current dialogue systems struggle with dynamic information retrieval, often leading to hallucinations and lower response accuracy. We address this by adapting the ReAct framework for Task-Oriented Dialogue, enabling Large Language Models (LLMs) to access external knowledge and produce factual responses. Mainly, we propose an unsupervised fine-tuning pipeline that harvests reasoning trajectories via in-context learning inference. High-quality samples are filtered using an LLM-based judge to construct a robust training set. This is enhanced by a unsupervised self-improvement loop, where improved checkpoints generate increasingly better trajectories for subsequent fine-tuning iterations. Experiments on the SIMMC dataset demonstrate that ReAct-based systems outperform baselines due to superior reasoning and tool use. Notably, our fine-tuned 8B model surpasses a 70B in-context system. Finally, we present an error analysis, impact of scene complexity, and cross-domain generalization.

The key limitation of current state-of-the-art influence-based guardrails is that they do not reliably distinguish a legitimate, user-authorized action from a malicious, unauthorized action when both rely on external tool information. This ambiguity can cause benign actions to trigger unnecessary verification and intervention, reducing utility and adding latency. We expose this limitation through an authorization-equivalence audit of 96 conditions derived from 24 base cases. Within matched source comparisons, we hold authorization, the exact committed action, and its intended effect fixed, changing only whether a required value comes from the user or a legitimate tool result. Although the action remains unchanged, this harmless relocation shifts the causal signal toward the attack region in all 24 cases under both Llama and Gemma scorers. Matched unauthorized controls show that the signal remains attack-sensitive, yet the benign relocation produces a larger average score shift than the actual change in authorization. Architecture-level evaluation shows how this mismatch propagates through guardrail designs. With a semantic monitor, attack success is 0% and utility is 28%, compared with 16% and 60% without it. A shadow-based guardrail allows every tested harmless run, yet does not reject matched unauthorized actions more often overall: 57.5% of unauthorized runs pass automatically before reaching the later security check, compared with 29.2% of authorized runs. These results show that the studied causal signal reveals what shaped an action without reliably encoding whether the action was authorized, and that reference construction and routing are integral to the effective security decision.

The reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) for API calling degrades in multilingual settings. A common failure occurs when a model selects the correct tool but generates argument values in an inconsistent language, which we term Argument Language Mismatch (ALM). Although semantically correct, such outputs are operationally invalid and not captured by standard API-calling metrics. We revisit post-training strategies for mitigating ALM and find that, in our benchmark, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) provides a strong baseline, substantially improving argument language consistency and end-to-end function call accuracy. Under consistent model selection, SFT achieves performance comparable to, and sometimes exceeding more complex reinforcement learning (RL) approaches. We further examine whether RL with structured, argument-aware rewards offers additional benefits. While methods such as Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) can improve language consistency and better preserve general reasoning ability, these gains are incremental and most pronounced in generalization and multi-objective trade-offs. Overall, our results suggest that much of the performance in multilingual API grounding can be achieved through careful supervised training, with RL providing targeted rather than fundamental improvements.

Tool-augmented vision-language models increasingly "think with images": they call crop, zoom, or code tools and reason over the returned pixels. However, recent work using blind tests, gain decompositions, and attention analyses has shown that returned images contribute little, raising the question: if pixels do not carry the gain, what does? We hypothesize that the load-bearing signal is the structured text emitted before any returned pixel arrives: tool name, coordinates, target description, and intent. This textual scaffold encodes where to look and what to find. We introduce TextCall (call-but-no-return) to test this: it keeps the scaffold but replaces returned images with the text placeholder [Image output skipped]. Three studies support the hypothesis. (i) Non-necessity of returned pixels: across LoRA, full fine-tuning, and RL, TextCall matches or exceeds full thinking-with-images; under RL it preserves tool use at the reported checkpoint, avoiding the failure mode where, under matched settings, seeing the returned image causes the model to stop calling tools and answer directly. (ii) Sufficiency of the scaffold: on matched training queries, scaffold-only input yields equivalent accuracy to returned-image input. (iii) Component specificity: decomposing the scaffold into reasoning text and spatial code shows both components contribute, with the dominant one varying by task. Together these results support the Tool-Call Scaffold Hypothesis: in current thinking-with-images distributions, the active signal is the structured text emitted at tool-call time; the returned image is a redundant carrier. TextCall preserves accuracy while reducing latency by 29-46% and eliminating tool-execution API calls. Our claims hold for current thinking-with-images benchmarks; constructing tasks where pixels are genuinely load-bearing remains an open direction.

A model alone does not determine how a programming agent acts. What the model sees, how actions enter the environment, how feedback returns, and how one run affects the next all depend on how the harness is organized. Minimal examples usually show only the basic interaction between a model and tools, while production systems spread these relationships across complex components and dependencies. This paper studies a compact harness design by following a single request through context formation, model decision, environmental action, observation return, and state continuation. Three boundaries---model, execution, and state---connect the model service, tool environment, and persistent state, while the request lifecycle determines the order in which these transitions occur. Together, they show the harness's core role: turning model generations into environmental actions, carrying runtime feedback into later decisions, and allowing state to continue across requests. On top of this runtime structure, a harness can also be gradually refined across runs through continued bootstrapping. The design is realized in the executable artifact https://github.com/lilinxi/Coderlet.

Agentic workflows have become an important abstraction for building reliable LLM-based automation systems by organizing large language models (LLMs), tools, and control logic into explicit execution structures. However, constructing high-quality agentic workflows remains largely manual and requires substantial domain expertise. Recent studies have explored automatic agentic workflow generation from historical task-solving records, but they mainly produce LLM-centric workflows, where real tool executions are abstracted and simulated by LLM nodes, limiting the usability and stability of generated workflows. To address these limitations, we propose FlowScout, an execution-guided framework for generating tool-integrated agentic workflows from historical task-solving records. Specifically, FlowScout represents an agentic workflow as a directed graph composed of LLM nodes, tool-calling nodes, and dependency edges. It first mines a common tool coordination skeleton from historical records to construct an initial workflow, and then refines the workflow topology through Monte Carlo tree search guided by execution feedback. We evaluate FlowScout on four representative task domains and compare it with three baselines, i.e., PM4Py, ReAct and AFlow. Experimental results show that agentic workflows generated by FlowScout improve tool invocation correctness by at least 92.69% and execution quality by at least 17.66% over the baselines, while achieving lower performance variation across repeated runs.

Video anomaly detection (VAD) is a critical yet challenging task due to the complex and diverse nature of real-world scenarios. Traditional deep learning approaches are fundamentally limited by poor generalization across diverse scenarios. While multimodal agents offer a promising tool-learning paradigm for VAD, current systems relying on supervised fine-tuning struggle with complex orchestration, and standard reinforcement learning often causes premature termination due to coarse-grained outcome rewards. To address these challenges, we propose VTO, a process-supervised reinforcement learning framework. Moving beyond static tool usage, VTO enables the agent to dynamically explore and interact with the environment. Specifically, we introduce a foundation model-driven cognitive evaluator to provide context-aware semantic feedback, which is seamlessly integrated into a Process-Supervised Cognitive Alignment that delivers fine-grained, step-wise supervision. By explicitly penalizing logical truncation and rewarding complete causal chains, the agent optimizes its multi-step reasoning policy for interrelated tool orchestration. To support our proposed framework, we meticulously crafted VAD-Tool, a hierarchical visual tool set comprising 12 specialized vision tools spanning from entity tracking to high-stakes hazard detection, and established the corresponding benchmark for rigorous multi-step reasoning evaluation. Extensive experiments on VAD-Tool demonstrate that VTO significantly outperforms baselines, achieving up to a 10.2% absolute accuracy improvement in tool scheduling. Code and data are available at https://github.com/MICLAB-BUPT/VTO.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly accelerated research in time-series analysis, particularly in forecasting, classification, and generation tasks. Recent models, especially foundation models, benefit from time-series dataset similarity due to its significant role in source dataset selection for fine-tuning. However, many existing implementations for benchmarking time-series dataset similarity methods are fragmented and difficult to extend. To address this, we present a unified framework, the Time-Series Dataset Similarity Toolbox (TSDS-Toolbox). Our work enables (1) systematic and reproducible comparisons of time-series dataset similarity methods; (2) flexible extensibility for users to add customized datasets, similarity methods, and downstream time-series tasks; and (3) consistent evaluation of both dataset-level and series-level similarity methods through integrated time-series dataset reducers. The effectiveness of TSDS-Toolbox is validated through comprehensive experiments under diverse experimental settings. Our toolbox is publicly available.

This paper presents, for the first time in power systems literature to our knowledge, analytical tools to explain the training performance of machine learning surrogate models for power system dynamics. Power system simulations are increasingly challenged by stiff and multi-timescale dynamics arising from converter-interfaced resources and fast control loops. Machine learning surrogates emerge as promising tools to handle this complexity and accelerate dynamic simulations. However, their performance remains difficult to interpret, which limits their adoption. Building on the small-signal eigenvalue analysis in power systems, this paper uses the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK) method. NTK delivers a modal interpretation of the learning performance, identifying error modes that decay rapidly versus others that converge slowly. This connection explains how physical stiffness and timescale separation in power system dynamic models appear as optimization stiffness during Neural Network (NN) training. Based on this analysis, we develop adaptive loss-weighting strategies to improve and explain why structure-aware neural architectures, such as ActNet, perform better than vanilla NNs. We assess the proposed approach on physics-informed machine learning surrogate models of \acp{SM} and power electronic converters. The methods introduced in this paper can deliver the necessary analytical tools to interpret and improve the performance of machine learning surrogates, paving the way for the systematic, physics-aware design of NN architectures and training strategies. By moving beyond trial-and-error development, these tools reveal training dynamics and failure modes, support more reliable design decisions, and strengthen confidence in machine-learning surrogates for engineering applications.

Tool use transforms LLMs into agents that act beyond their training data, and for code-capable models, programmatic tool calling extends this further by replacing rigid JSON calls with scripts that chain and parallelize naturally. However, a systematic evaluation of tools as code on an established benchmark across current and prior model generations under real-world task conditions has not been conducted. In this work, we empirically compare programmatic tool calling (PTC) to native JSON tool calling across 14 language models on BFCL v4. In the programmatic tool calling paradigm, tools are exposed as typed Python stubs that the model invokes through code, with execution and results handled in a single agent turn. Programmatic tool calling matches or exceeds native JSON tool calling in 11 of 14 models on BFCL v4, with the GPT-5.6 family achieving a 10.6% improvement over the JSON tool calling baseline. Further, it matches or outperforms baseline in 13 of 14 models under parallel fan-out, and holds stable under context rot conditions where baseline degrades 2.3% on average. Our results demonstrate that programmatic tool calling is a viable and robust alternative to JSON tool calling, with performance tracking model capability across release generations.

The "thinking-with-images" paradigm equips multimodal LLMs with active visual operations such as crop-and-zoom. However, models using these operations often achieve only marginal or negative gains over direct inference at substantially higher token cost. They may also repeatedly crop irrelevant regions and fail on questions that direct inference answers correctly. We ask whether the returned visual evidence causally affects the answer. To answer this question, we formulate visual tool-use as a causal graph that separates observation-mediated paths from action-induced shortcuts. We then audit it through interventions at the three levels: policy (comparing tool-use with direct inference), trajectory (corrupting all observations during rollout), and step (counterfactually replacing one individual observation under a fixed prefix). Our step-level estimand, Visual Evidence Gain, isolates the contribution of each returned observation. Across six representative models and five fine-grained perception benchmarks, we uncover policy miscalibration with two failure modes. In Calling Without Looking, returned observations have no causal effect on the answer. In Looking Without Planning, observations are informative but the call schedule is incoherent. A trajectory-level diagnostic decomposes the policy-level accuracy gain into per-group contributions and shows that the gain is concentrated in a Calibrated minority. We term this discrepancy the illusion of visual tool-use: despite aggregate accuracy gains, visual tool-use is not causally effective across a broad range of rollouts. The code is available at https://github.com/OpenCausaLab/CauAudit.

Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why. We introduce canary tools: diagnostic probe tools planted in an agent's Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool set, each engineered to probe one specific tool-selection weakness. A six-type taxonomy (semantic decoys, parameter traps, capability mirages, prerequisite blindness, temporal decoys, and granularity traps) turns a single "wrong tool" outcome into a multi-dimensional profile of how a model reasons about tools. We evaluate eight models -- six hosted and two 8B open-weight -- spanning three capability tiers, on 120 tasks across three canary-density conditions and three seeds (8,640 runs), plus a 2,880-run subtlety ablation. Task success is graded by a provider-independent judge, corroborated by a second independent judge (Cohen's kappa = 0.75). We report three findings. First, susceptibility drops sharply as models get more capable: the per-task canary susceptibility rate (CSR) ranges about 36x across models, lowest for Claude Opus 4.8 and highest for Llama 3.1 8B. Second, capability tier alone does not predict safety: the most susceptible hosted model is mid-tier, and within a provider the cheaper model can be the safer one. Third, the taxonomy is capability-stratified: capability mirages most reliably trap frontier models, while the other types are largely inert on strong models but fire on small open models, so they discriminate by capability rather than being weak. Softening each canary's give-away phrase leaves frontier CSR essentially unchanged, evidence that the probes measure reasoning, not phrase-spotting. Susceptibility also predicts task failure (Spearman rho = -0.34), while the most robust models are not significantly degraded by canary pressure. We release the framework, canary schemas, tasks, and logs.

The performance bottleneck of agents is increasingly shifting from model capability to the robustness of their execution processes. Tools play a central role as the primary interface through which agents interact with external environments, yet existing methods rarely focus on ensuring robust tool use across diverse runtime conditions. To address this problem, we propose ExpG, a mechanism that builds and refines adaptive guidance capturing each tool's capability boundaries and best practices, thereby enabling agents to use tools more robustly and effectively. ExpG consists of three phases: (1) experience acquisition, which analyzes tool invocation quality from historical execution trajectories, producing structured learnable experiences through multi-aspect attribution; (2) experience distillation, which keeps the experience pool effective by filtering unhelpful experiences, selecting representative ones with an equivalence-class-based method, and summarizing them into generalizable guidance; and (3) experience reuse, which applies the guidance adaptively during future task solving. Extensive experiments show that ExpG brings consistent improvements across the tool selection, tool calling, and response generation tasks, enabling smaller agents to outperform larger ones that do not use ExpG. Moreover, ExpG achieves particularly strong gains in challenging settings, suggesting a promising path toward more robust tool use. Our code, experiments, and results are available.

Hybrid computer-use agents can act through screenshots or call text tools. We find that having a tool available does not settle which way the effect goes. Under one identical GUI-MCP harness on the OSWorld-MCP benchmark (309 tasks), the same MCP tools improve a reasoning model by +4.0pp and degrade a non-reasoning model by -5.9pp (5 runs each, both beyond 2 SE). What separates the two is tool-decision behavior. The non-reasoning policy ignores, misnames, or falsely terminates around tools. The reasoning model avoids these failures, yet still calls a tool on only 55/309 tasks, 23.9% of the tool-reachable ones. We call this shortfall the adoption gap. Both levels of the problem share one cause: the model already has a cheaper route and is never trained to take it. Multi-turn RL probes that cause. At the action level, a dense tool bonus raises spreadsheet adoption 0.03 -> 0.33 and carries into greedy decoding, but held-out accuracy does not follow. Behavior is steerable; competence is not. The bottleneck lies in tool-call semantics. At the context level, a successful tool call often makes the next screenshot redundant. Dropping it and halving image history cuts input tokens by about a third, at a small accuracy cost. Retraining under the same observation rule removes that cost. The compressed agent then reaches 37.8% against 33.0% for the uncompressed operating point, at 53% of the input cost, and closes the rich-lean gap on a pre-registered degraded subset to zero. Tools help when the model chooses and integrates them, and current hybrid agents leave many such choices unused. Code and checkpoints: https://github.com/redai-infra/hybrid-routing-agent

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in task-oriented dialogue systems that support multi-step decision-making in high-stakes domains such as education, healthcare, and finance. However, existing benchmarks typically assume perfectly accurate tool outputs, overlooking the reality that deployed systems must operate with noisy tools and human decision-makers whose trust in the agent is itself uncertain. Such conditions are common in practice, for example, a clinician using a diagnostic prediction tool or an advisor relying on a model that forecasts student outcomes from historical records. We introduce PREDACTBENCH, a benchmark for evaluating dialogue agents paired with statistically imperfect tools, using education as a measurable testbed where ground truth outcomes and clear intervention decisions are available. First, we build a benchmark for AI-assisted human decision-making, where the AI uses noisy predictors to help guide a user. Second, we introduce episode-level Relative AI-Reliance (RAIR) and Relative self-reliance (RSR) metrics, extending prior trust calibration framework to multi-turn dialogue. Third, we evaluate 13 state-of-the-art closed and open source LLMs on two educational datasets, OULAD (real assessment trajectories from the UK Open University) and PREDACT-CS (60 courses with real final grade outcomes and synthetically generated weekly score trajectories), alongside a human study with instructors and teaching assistants. We find that when tools are noisy, SOTA models are supposed to provide visibility to teachers so that they do not over-rely on wrong suggestions or hallucinations, but current models fail to do that. We offer PREDACTBENCH to help build better LLMs as AI decision support systems to help teachers.

Executing long-horizon tool invocations in real-world environments is severely challenged by dynamic user intent noise. Existing methods attempt robustness via implicit history scanning or text compression, yet predominantly assume perfect instructions in simplistic scenarios. Inevitably, under fluctuating contexts, obsolete constraints dilute model attention, triggering catastrophic intent deviation and infinite API loops. To resolve this, we propose IACM-RL, a comprehensive framework for robust tool invocation. First, we introduce the DynamicIntent pipeline, synthesizing trajectories across 13 fine-grained fluctuation scenarios, paired with a five-dimensional diagnostic metric suite. Second, IACM-RL deploys a BeliefState-based Self-Generated Context Manager that proactively tracks shifting goals and isolates overwritten parameters using structural stale flags. To autonomously internalize this state-tracking capability, we optimize the policy using a hierarchical intent-driven reward alongside three auxiliary losses (action calibration, CM extraction, and state distillation). Experiments on DynamicIntent, BFCL-V3, and $\mathrmτ^2$-Bench demonstrate that IACM-RL significantly outperforms baselines, reducing infinite loops and stale context errors while enhancing out-of-domain generalization.

Runtime safety monitors based on Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) and finite automata (FSA) are increasingly deployed to intercept unsafe tool-call sequences in LLM agents. Yet the same monitor achieves 68-75% attack coverage on some model architectures and near-zero on others, with no explanation from capability scores, training data, or prompt design. We provide the missing theory. We prove that the recall of any fixed-invariant FSA monitor is bounded above by the concentration of the attack distribution: the fraction of attacks covered by the k most frequent trigger-completion patterns. When attacks concentrate (low Shannon entropy), a small fixed invariant set achieves high recall; when they disperse across many structurally distinct patterns (high entropy), no fixed invariant set of tractable size can, regardless of how the invariants were derived. We validate this entropy-coverage bound across eight frontier LLM architectures. GPT-class and DeepSeek backends yield highly concentrated attacks (H ~ 0.24 bits; one pattern covers 96%), explaining 68-75% recall; Gemini variants yield high-entropy distributions (H ~ 2.81 bits; 7 clusters each <= 7%), explaining near-zero recall (6-13%), invariant to architecture-matched retraining. Entropy accounts for 76% of variance in coverage (Pearson r = -0.87, p = 0.005, 95% CI [-0.98, -0.78]), holding under leave-one-out (r in [-0.91, -0.82]). We introduce a pre-deployment entropy test that predicts monitor coverage from a small attack sample, enabling architecture-aware monitor selection before deployment. The bound and test are architecture-agnostic and apply to any FSA-based runtime monitor over discrete action sequences.

Tool-using language-model agents are governed not only by task prompts but also by persistent system-side instructions that specify tools, arguments, policies, execution protocols, and recovery. Compressing these agent control contexts (ACCs) can reduce input cost and context use, yet existing prompt-compression evaluations do not reveal whether the resulting control remains operationally reliable. We introduce CompressAgent, an environment-verified benchmark for ACC compression across nine independently constructed ACCs, three task families, three fixed Qwen API model identifiers, six retained-context budgets, and 15,525 runs. We uncover a nonlinear, method-dependent reliability frontier. At 75% retained context, generic rewriting and section-based compression achieve 92.7% and 92.4% success, close to the 93.8% full-context baseline. Between 50% and 35%, methods diverge sharply; at 35%, section-based, obligation-aware, and generic rewriting achieve 47.0%, 39.0%, and 19.9%. At retained-context budgets from 25% to 10%, executable protocols become fragile. Reliability also varies substantially across ACCs, making universal compressor rankings inappropriate and motivating per-context qualification. Failure analysis shows that compression primarily surfaces as tool-execution and action-parsing errors. These findings recast ACC compression from token reduction into a runtime-reliability problem that must be evaluated through executable outcomes.

LLMs generate tool calls token by token, even though the function choice and argument values can often be predicted in parallel from the request and tool schema. ToolSpec reduces this cost by drafting schema tokens and retrieving earlier calls, but cannot propose request-specific values absent from either source. We present OoO-Spec, which computes these missing semantics out of order. At request arrival, a Qwen3-0.6B sidecar predicts the function choice and all schema-defined argument slots in one parallel request-level wave while the target begins ToolSpec decoding. The runtime joins the slot values, renders the resulting call as text, and exposes it to subsequent candidate-construction rounds. The target polls without blocking, re-tokenizes a ready hint with its own tokenizer, and remains the sole verifier and commit authority. The sidecar is trained once with LoRA on Qwen2.5-32B teacher traces and used unchanged across Qwen2.5, Qwen3, and Llama targets, without target-specific drafter training. Across seven fully ranked targets and three benchmarks under greedy batch-one decoding, OoO-Spec is fastest among all evaluated methods in all 21 target-benchmark cells, reaching 2.46x-5.34x over autoregressive decoding with an unweighted mean of 3.89x, versus 2.95x for ToolSpec. It also outperforms every evaluated released learned drafter in each comparable cell. Across Qwen3-4B, 8B, 14B, and 32B targets, the same sidecar improves on ToolSpec by 34.1% on average. Its compact semantic payload averages 85 bytes per request excluding protocol metadata, supporting effective split-GPU overlap.

Tool calling allows large language models (LLMs) to invoke external computation during problem solving, a useful capability in various fields including AI for mathematics. We study this setting through weighted sum-of-squares (SOS) decomposition, a machine-checkable route to proving polynomial nonnegativity and hence polynomial inequalities. A candidate decomposition can be checked exactly, but finding one requires choosing among non-unique regroupings and coordinating multiple symbolic transformations. We develop an agent that combines algebraic task training, symbolic tools, and verifier-grounded optimization for this task. Rather than training only on the composite SOS task, we construct 1.35 million synthetic examples covering eight supporting polynomial tasks together with weighted-SOS decomposition. We first apply supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to direct algebra problems and simulated symbolic traces, and then use Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with task-specific symbolic rewards. The SFT corpus contains no native tool-calling messages; at evaluation, the agent uses native SymPy calls for expansion, collection, reordering, and factorization. Every final SOS answer is checked by exact expansion and coefficient comparison. On held-out, same-generator synthetic problems, the full SFT+GRPO+tools system is the strongest of four evaluated configurations, reaching 78.96% verified success on weighted SOS, compared with 44.73% for the base model with the same tools, and 91.75% macro accuracy across nine polynomial tasks. Within this controlled setting, our work provides a case study of combining domain-specific skill training, executable tools, and verifier feedback, and may inform the design of tool-calling agents in other domains with exactly checkable outputs.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents rely on external tools to perform multistage tasks. Existing agent frameworks typically assume that tool calls are atomic and return binary success or failure signals. However, real-world systems exhibit non-atomic behaviors such as timeouts after dispatch, delayed visibility, and partial state updates. These mismatches lead to reliability issues including duplicate actions, task success, and unnecessary tool executions. A lightweight, verification-aware tool wrapper is introduced that augments tool calls with postcondition verification, verify-before-retry logic, and idempotency keys. The approach is evaluated in a controlled simulated environment with injected non-atomic failures across multiple task templates. The results demonstrate that the proposed method significantly reduces duplicate actions, while maintaining comparable task success rates. Overall, the findings suggest that strengthening tool interaction semantics is a promising direction for improving LLM agent reliability without requiring modifications to the underlying language model.

Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is crucial for preprocedural TAVI planning, providing the anatomical information required for prosthesis sizing and vascular access assessment. As the volume of TAVI procedure increases, improving efficiency and standardizing annotations is becoming essential in clinical practice. This study presents TAVI-TEC, a fully automated artificial intelligence-based framework integrated into a web based DICOM viewer for routine preoperative TAVI planning. Pre-procedural CTA scans from patients undergoing TAVI with SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3U) prostheses were processed using a fully automated pipeline. Deep learning-based segmentation of cardiovascular structures, calcification detection, centerline extraction, landmark identification, and annular plane definition was implemented to quantify key annular and aortic root measurements and color-coded maps of lumen reduction and vessel diameter for vascular access. A multilayer perceptron classifier was trained to predict prosthesis size prior to the TAVI procedure. Results revealed that TAVI-TEC enabled pre-procedural measurements in approximately 2-6 min. Strong agreement with clinician-derived measurements was observed for annular area (coefficient of concordance, CCC = 0.934; interclass correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.935; R^2 = 0.881) and perimeter (CCC = 0.909; ICC = 0.909; R^2 = 0.854). The valve-size prediction model achieved 82% overall accuracy, with most misclassifications occurring between adjacent prosthesis sizes. Though further multicenter validation and extension to additional measurements and valve platforms are required, the TAVI-TEC methodology may reduce operator variability in pre-TAVI measurements and streamline the preoperative workflows of the Heart Team for decision-making.

The fundamental goal of agentic visual reasoning is to improve the success rate of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on complex tasks, rather than merely equipping them with a sophisticated yet inefficient reasoning paradigm. In this work, we rethink agentic visual reasoning through two key dimensions of tool use: Mode Adaptiveness (MA) and Tool Effect (TE). Mode Adaptiveness characterizes whether an MLLM can recognize when tools are truly necessary and invoke them accordingly, thereby avoiding unnecessary computational overhead while improving performance on challenging problems that require tool assistance. Tool Effect characterizes the actual impact of tool use: tools should extend the model's capabilities on problems unsolvable through text-only reasoning, while avoiding additional errors on problems that the model can already solve without tools. We conduct a comprehensive analysis to quantify these two properties and empirically reveal that existing agentic visual reasoning models exhibit limited Mode Adaptiveness, while the gains produced by tool use on hard examples are largely offset by the harm introduced on easy examples that the models can already solve. Motivated by these observations, we propose Beacon, a novel agentic visual reasoning model that achieves stronger overall performance, improved Mode Adaptiveness, and genuine tool-induced performance gains. At the core of Beacon are the Necessity-Aware Adaptive Reward and the Hint-Guided Capability Expansion mechanism in the reinforcement learning stage, which respectively encourage adaptive tool invocation based on task necessity and strengthen the model's tool-use capability on the most challenging problems. Extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks demonstrate the strong overall performance of Beacon and its substantial improvements in both Mode Adaptiveness and Tool Effect.

Agentic vision-language models (VLMs), which interleave textual reasoning with explicit tool calls such as cropping and code-based image manipulation, have emerged as a compelling paradigm for reliable and interpretable multimodal reasoning. However, recent studies have revealed that such models often use tools unfaithfully. Many process images are irrelevant to the question (e.g., the tool crops the wrong region or misses the queried target), yet the call still receives full credit and the model still answers correctly. Such decorative or misaligned tool calls waste computation and reveal that the model leans on prior knowledge or the original image rather than the evidence it retrieves. This may stem from two limitations of prevailing methods: the tool reward fails to distinguish useful from useless calls, and tool feedback carries no signal of usefulness. To this end, we introduce FaithEyes, a multi-agent self-judging framework. Concretely, we use a VLM to judge whether each process image helps answer the question. The judgement is injected into the reasoning context as part of the tool observation to help subsequent reasoning, and meanwhile is used to scale the tool reward by the helpful-tool ratio to suppress reward hacking. To keep judgement available at evaluation and thus ensure train-test consistency, we further design a multi-agent framework where the model itself serves as a subagent to judge the tool calls from main agent, eliminating any dependence on an external model at inference. Training via a two-stage SFT + RL pipeline on adapted open-source data, FaithEyes attains competitive or superior accuracy across visual perception and reasoning benchmarks, while markedly improving tool faithfulness. The homepage is at https://github.com/Mosi-AI/FaithEyes.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used in embodied agents to interpret visual inputs, reason about spatial relationships, and make task-level decisions based on that reasoning. However, a fundamental capability mismatch remains: general VLMs can reason about the overall task but often miss the visual details that determine success, while specialist vision models can capture those details but cannot translate them into task-level decisions. In this work, we propose SpatialCLI, a framework that teaches VLMs to reason with spatial tools and progressively internalize the specialist perceptual capabilities they provide. SpatialCLI proceeds in three stages: (1) Call exposes specialist vision models as spatial tools to augment the VLM's perception; (2) Learn uses Cold-Start SFT and agentic RL to improve tool use; and (3) Internalize verbalizes successful tool-use trajectories to internalize specialist perceptual capabilities. We further introduce SpatialCLI-Bench, a 516-example benchmark for compositional perception across localization, segmentation, depth, and pose. On MindCube, SpatialCLI raises Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct from 29.3% to 84.6% with tools, surpassing GPT-5.6 Sol with tools (72.1%), while retaining 73.8% without tools after internalization.

The rapid development of large language model (LLM) agents has enabled their broad adoption across diverse real-world tasks. To standardize interactions between LLM agents and external environments, Model Context Protocol (MCP) tools have emerged as a de facto standard and have been widely integrated into these systems. However, the use of MCP tools also introduces new safety risks, as LLM agents can be induced to perform malicious or unauthorized actions. Although prior work has proposed defenses for securing tool use in LLM agents, most methods rely on static analysis, i.e., inspecting prompts and generated outputs, which limits the defense effectiveness and robustness. To address these limitations, we propose MTGuard, a hybrid analysis-based defense framework designed to safeguard the use of MCP tools in LLM agents by leveraging lifecycle-aware static-dynamic co-analysis. Extensive evaluation demonstrates that MTGuard effectively mitigates multiple categories of harmful tool use across different LLM agents while maintaining performance on benign user tasks.

Language-model agents act through structured tool calls whose arguments carry very different risks: untrusted content may legitimately shape an email body but should never set a recipient, account, command, or credential. Existing conformal risk control methods certify a tool call as a whole, so a failure in one rare high-risk field can be averaged away by the many benign arguments around it, leaving the argument that causes harm uncertified. We introduce role-stratified per-field conformal risk control, a calibration layer that wraps any per-field detector and assigns a separate threshold and risk budget to each semantic argument role. We show that aggregate certification pays a price of coarseness, tightening a rare role's effective budget in proportion to how often that role appears, whereas role-stratified calibration certifies each sufficiently sampled role directly with a finite-sample guarantee and pools the rarest roles. Across AgentDojo and InjecAgent with six language models, our method achieves the most consistent role-specific budget compliance among the methods we evaluate under model and attack transfer, detector noise, gradual drift, unseen tool suites, and adaptive attacks, providing formal per-role guarantees under exchangeability or after recalibration. These results suggest that structured tool calls should be certified at the semantic-role level, not the whole action.

LLM agents increasingly rely on external tools, expanding capability while creating a new security boundary: third-party tools may appear benign at the interface level while embedding unsafe behavior in implementation. Existing defenses rely on weak metadata, collapse characterization and policy judgment into a single decision, or use heuristic/LLM enforcement that lacks deterministic, auditable reasoning over task context and multi-tool composition. This paper presents ToolGuardian, a policy-driven framework for securing agent-tool interactions through pre-admission vetting and task-aware runtime authorization. ToolGuardian uses progressive characterization to convert evidence into structured facts: descriptions capture declared intent, system-call traces expose coarse behavior, mock execution reveals observed effects, and source analysis identifies latent behavior. ToolGuardian's core contribution is an Answer Set Programming (ASP)-based declarative policy layer that reasons explicitly over capabilities, effects, task context, and composition. We compare ASP against heuristic and LLM-based policy realizations using identical inputs and output contracts. We evaluate ToolGuardian on 16 MCP-style tools, including 8 malicious variants derived from real open-source tools, and 20 runtime scenarios. For vetting, ASP reaches a deny-class F1 of 0.86 and 88% accuracy using description, syscall, and observed-effect evidence. For runtime authorization, fully specified realizations classify all scenarios correctly, while ablations show that removing compositional and conformance rules substantially degrades performance.

Long audio-video reasoning is difficult for omnimodal LLMs because the decisive evidence is often sparse, cross-modal, and too expensive to preserve with uniformly high-fidelity inputs. We introduce OmniReasoner, a tool-use post-training framework for Thinking with Long Audio-Video: omni-modal LLMs learn, via supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, to decide whether and where to call a zoom-in tool before answering. OmniReasoner first builds a low-cost global preview of the full stream and then, when needed, calls the zoom-in tool with a requested temporal interval for higher-fidelity visual and audio inspection before answering. Because the model observes different sampling granularities before and after this call -- a sparse global preview and a denser local clip -- we introduce TimeAnchor, which keeps the tool's temporal argument valid and round-trip-consistent across these granularities, rather than tied to frame indices from a particular sampling rate. To make this tool-use behavior trainable without expensive manual interval annotation, we build a Temporal Augmented Data Engine that synthesizes tool-use post-training trajectories by video editing and composition. Experiments across omnimodal and video benchmarks show that OmniReasoner improves both answer accuracy and temporal grounding while concentrating high-fidelity computation on informative regions. Code is available at https://github.com/RockyChen0205/OmniReasoner.

LLM-powered agents increasingly tackle complex tasks by invoking tools, querying databases, executing code, and manipulating intermediate artifacts. These agents follow trajectories that are typically stored as chronological logs, obscuring the underlying dataflow -- the dependencies between their actions and the artifacts they create and manipulate. This limits developers' ability to understand the agents' trails, compare executions, debug failures, and re-use the computations. We present AgentTrails, a prototype system for agent provenance and sensemaking. AgentTrails converts raw trajectories into structured provenance graphs, where tool calls are modeled as computational actions and inputs and outputs as data artifacts. The system supports the comparison of executions by placing multiple provenance graphs on a shared canvas and constructing a joined quotient graph that aligns recurring tools, artifacts, and dependency structures across trajectories. On top of this representation, AgentTrails supports pattern extraction, downstream analysis, and skill abstraction. We demonstrate AgentTrails on real-world agent trajectories, showing that it reveals hidden dependencies, aligns divergent executions, and surfaces recurring tool-use patterns beyond chronological logs.

Humans have always externalized thought onto tools, from the tally and the abacus to the map and, now, large language models. I model the agent, the tool, and the task as one dynamical system in which competence (what the user retains) and reliance (what the user outsources) co-evolve, and find that the outcome is bistable. Above a critical tool availability the competent state is destroyed and competence collapses toward a low dependent floor as the user outsources completely. Lowering availability does not reverse the collapse until a far lower threshold, so history of practice rather than the current tool fixes the state. Two users with the same present access can therefore occupy opposite and lasting states, one competent and one dependent, decided only by which they built first. The collapse threshold depends jointly on the competence a user brings to a task and on the tool's transparency, the fraction of its working a user can reconstruct. In the case where an agent faces an uncertain goal, a tool can cause agency itself to transfer to the tool and the human-agent becomes an agentic-instrument, irreversibly, because the tool's model is too large to internalize. The model is tested against several independent data sets, including GPS and map use, arithmetic expertise, and language models. These results reframe how tools should be built, how artificial intelligence is deployed, and what a tool-resistant education might require.

In robotic manipulation studies, grasping is often treated as a binary success or failure problem, usually defined by whether the object simply stays in the hand. For forceful tool use, however, this view is insufficient because grasp compliance becomes a critical factor governing how the hand and tool behave under load. Compliance arises from coupled kinematics, grasp configuration, passive mechanics, and contact conditions, producing nonlinear behavior in which deformation and interaction forces influence each other. Understanding this relationship is essential for predictive models of how a grasped tool and a compliant hand jointly respond to external loading. In underactuated hands, these effects are amplified: such designs offer low cost and adaptive grasping, but make compliance behavior more difficult to model and predict. Our goal is therefore to develop a predictive model for grasped tool behavior during forceful interactions. To address this challenge, we introduce an analytical model informed neural network (AMINN), a hybrid predictive model that combines an analytical mechanics layer with data driven learning to estimate grasp stability and in hand tool displacement under external loading. The model is evaluated on a three finger underactuated robotic hand and shows strong predictive capability with mechanically meaningful outputs across diverse loading conditions. Compared with a black box multilayer perceptron baseline, AMINN also achieves better energy based physical consistency. Beyond prediction accuracy alone, this framework advances physically interpretable learning for robotic manipulation and supports more reliable, safer, and more trustworthy autonomous tool use in safety critical settings during forceful interaction.

Existing tool-use benchmarks report a single success rate for complex, multistep tasks. Inspired by ideas from cognitive science, we distinguish tool use from tool discovery and decompose the latter into curiosity (the model's ability to discover the parts needed to build the tool), recognition (the model's ability to discover the process of creating the tool), and efficiency (the model's use of the tool after creation). We show that this framework can be applied to existing discovery tasks, such as Voyager. In addition, we provide evidence that recognition inversely scales with model size, and we introduce and analyze a class of combinatorial games that demonstrates this. We further observe inverse scaling in a separate environment designed to emulate real-world tasks.

Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification (MSCV) requires models to verify scientific claims using visually grounded evidence from papers, including figures, tables, charts, and textual context. However, existing methods often fail because they struggle to locate decisive visual evidence, accurately read structured scientific visuals, and integrate multimodal observations into reliable reasoning. We introduce ToolSciVer, the first tool-augmented framework for MSCV to our knowledge. ToolSciVer equips a VLM with three type-aware visual tools, table row/column focus, chart-to-structure parsing, and high-resolution region zoom, which convert dense scientific visuals into explicit, claim-facing evidence, and trains the policy with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) under a composite reward of answer correctness, format validity, length control, tool-use efficiency, and tool-validity penalties. Experiments on SciVer and MuSciClaims datasets on five VLMs from three model families (Qwen, InternVL, Gemma) demonstrate that our method achieves superior performance compared to four competitive baselines including prompting-based and RL-based tool-use methods, highlighting the effectiveness of learned, type-aware tool use for scientific claim verification.

LLM agents increasingly rely on tool calling to act on external systems, and the Model Context Protocol (MCP) has quickly become its de facto interface. Operating MCP at cloud scale, however, becomes difficult. On the tool provider side, legacy services are not directly callable through MCP; the rapid protocol development also creates ongoing compatibility cost. On the agent side, the number of accessible tool is limited by the LLM context window and inference overhead; mounting a large tool set increases token usage and inference latency and can reduce task success rate. Moreover, for stateful MCP backends with multiple replicas, preserving session affinity increases client-side complexity. We present a cloud-scale gateway system for MCP service. It breaks the direct-connect model on the data plane and offloads legacy service integration, consolidating incompatible MCP variants, access control, tool recommendation, and session-aware routing to the gateway. Hybrid retrieval sustains 98% Top-15 recall; it scales agent tool access to 3,000+ with high tool selection accuracy, and reduces tool selection time by $8.9\times$ and token usage by $23.8\times$, with low per-call overhead, stable under scale-out. Finally, we share the lessons learned from deploying the gateway system in production.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have accelerated the adoption of software development agents, now widely available as Integrated Development Environment (IDE) extensions and standalone applications. While these agents are typically general-purpose, it remains unclear whether specialist agents justify their additional development effort. We investigate this question in the context of business process automation, focusing on the transformation of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) diagrams into executable agentic workflows. Since BPMN specifies explicit control-flow semantics, we focus on deterministic workflows in which a fixed process model and inputs uniquely determine the executed path. We introduce a specialist workflow for this task and compare it against generalist agents such as Roo and Cline. Our results show that the specialist solution produces agents that outperform generalist baselines by approximately 9-20 percentage points in tool-use exactness, 2-4x in penalty-adjusted latency, and 3x fewer tool-call errors, while reducing generation token cost by over 95% and eliminating repair iterations. We also find that generalist agents generate code inconsistently in both functionality and quality, limiting their suitability for industrial settings where reliability and maintainability are essential.

Safety alignment in LLMs aims to align models with human values, but which values take precedence when they conflict? We investigate this question in the context of tool-calling LLM agents deployed in regulated industries, where agents processing confidential documents may encounter content that triggers safety-trained values (e.g., public welfare) that conflict with deployment-context instructions (e.g., internal logging). To empirically verify this phenomenon, we build a benchmark of 128 scenarios across 16 domains. We find that safety-aligned open-source models override their deployment instructions up to 43.4% of the time, engaging in whistleblowing, data exfiltration, and evidence tampering when processing documents that suggest organizational wrongdoing. We also find that abliteration reduces rates of external whistleblowing. These results reveal a fundamental tension in pluralistic alignment, where the same safety training that protects users can cause agents to act against deployment instructions in ways that create unpredictable liability risks. We release our benchmark as a framework to support evaluation of agent behavior under competing legitimate interests.

Agentic coding tools are increasingly capable of generating and submitting pull requests (PRs) to software projects, introducing new forms of human-agent collaboration in software development. While prior studies have examined PR-level outcomes of agent-generated contributions, less is known about how agentic coding tools are adopted and managed at the project level. In this paper, we analyze 25,264 agentic PRs from 2,361 popular GitHub repositories to investigate (1) the adoption of agentic coding tools, (2) project-level agentic PR productivity, and (3) human-agent collaboration patterns. Our results show that the median repository generates only one to two agentic PRs during a three-month period, indicating that intensive adoption remains concentrated in a small subset of projects. At the same time, small projects (1-5 contributors) exhibit higher participation ratios and average levels of agentic PR activity than medium-sized and large projects. We also observe substantial variation in project-level agentic PR productivity. While a small number of projects exceed an industry-reported estimate of 36 PRs per participant during the three-month observation period, most projects remain below this threshold. Finally, human-agent collaboration is dominated by a single-human oversight model, in which one developer reviews and/or modifies the agent's contributions, while multi-human collaboration patterns remain uncommon. These findings provide early empirical evidence on how open-source projects organize human oversight around agentic coding tools and suggest that successful integration of agent-generated contributions depends not only on advances in agent capabilities but also on the human and organizational processes that govern their use. Because this study captures an early snapshot of agent adoption, future work should continue to track how adoption patterns evolve over time.

Small language models (SLMs) have shown promise for zero-shot molecular property prediction from SMILES strings, yet they often suffer from structural blindness because sequence representations under-specify key graph-topological cues. We propose a modular Context-Augmented Prompting framework that enables agentic tool use at inference time: a trained GNN expert model provides a predictive hint with confidence, and a GNN extracts an instance-specific explanatory subgraph (e.g., a subgraph SMILES and an accompanying explanatory paragraph). We evaluate three commonly used SLMs on MUTAG and Tox21 under five prompting configurations ranging from SMILES-only to using all available tools at hand. Across two datasets, enriching prompts with graph-derived context yields substantial accuracy gains, often exceeding 25% relative improvement and up to 74% on Tox21. We further validate the functional relevance of the extracted motifs via a necessity-based edge-drop intervention. Despite the observed gains, a persistent gap remains to specialized GNN models, highlighting both the value and limits of text-conditioned reasoning for molecular structure.

We introduce MM-ToolSandBox, a benchmark and evaluation framework for visually grounded tool-calling agents. The framework provides a stateful execution environment spanning 500+ tools across 16 application domains, supporting multi-image, multi-turn tasks where agents must ground progressively arriving visual inputs into executable tool calls while handling realistic conversational phenomena (goal revisions, error corrections, state mutations). An automated scenario generation pipeline produces diverse, visually grounded scenarios through information-flow-guided planning and multi-stage quality filtering, yielding 258 human-verified nominal scenarios and 50 variants targeting interactive UI applications. Evaluating 12 state-of-the-art models, from 4B open-weight to frontier proprietary systems, shows that current models still lack robust visual tool-calling capability: even the best model achieves below 50% success rate. Our failure analysis further reveals that visual precision, not only planning, is a primary bottleneck for capable models: 53% of failures stem from incorrect information extraction from images despite otherwise correct task workflows. A planning-to-precision crossover emerges with scale: smaller models fail at deciding what to do, while larger models fail at perceiving what they see, suggesting fundamentally different research directions for improving models at different capability levels. The framework and the benchmark are publicly available at https://github.com/apple/ml-mmtoolsandbox

We present PinFT, a miniature five-axis capacitive force/torque sensor designed for direct tip-level integration into tweezer-like tools. The sensor employs a compact three-PCB stack with segmented plated through-hole electrodes and a silicone elastomer dielectric, enabling five-degree-of-freedom force and torque sensing ($F_x$, $F_y$, $F_z$, $T_x$, $T_y$) through displacement of a central 2,mm-diameter stainless steel pin. The fabricated prototype was calibrated using a higher-order polynomial mapping, yielding mean absolute errors of approximately 0.23,N for forces and 2.5,mN$\cdot$m for torques, with coefficients of determination ($R^2$) exceeding 0.97 across all axes. To demonstrate practical utility, a 3D-printed tweezer integrating PinFT sensors at both tips was mounted on a parallel-jaw gripper and evaluated across three representative manipulation tasks: grasping a sub-millimeter SMD capacitor, pulling a simulated hair from a silicone substrate, and tearing a compliant silicone specimen. In all cases, per-tip force sensing reliably captured characteristic force signatures that distinguish successful manipulation from failure events -- including slip and object ejection -- using gradient-based features derived from internal grasp force and net interaction force. These results demonstrate that direct, per-tip force sensing enables standard parallel-jaw grippers to monitor and interpret fine manipulation tasks performed through a handheld tweezer.

Recognition tells an agent what is in an image; personal memory affects what is worth looking up next. In a camera-first setting the user can send only an image, so the agent must form the lookups. We study whether personal visual memory improves agent-side tool choice and tool arguments, and thereby more user-aligned multi-tool lookups. The design uses a three-layer personal visual memory (profile, short-term focus, observations) that is loaded on each turn to condition an LLM tool-calling loop under camera-first intake, and includes conflict-aware write-back intended to refresh the user model for later captures. On 800 images paired with synthetic memory blocks constructed for controlled ablation, removing the full three-layer memory block reduces tool-query relevance by 0.47 points absolute (4.21 -> 3.74 on a 5-point scale; 11.2% relative) and end-to-end utility by 0.082 absolute (0.842 -> 0.760; 9.7% relative). These results measure memory conditioning of tool policy under image-only intake with fixed synthetic blocks, not multi-session write-back from live user histories.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trusted to draft the artifacts of safety analysis such as, losses, hazards, Unsafe Control Actions (UCAs), and safety constraints, inside rigorous processes such as Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA). Yet a blind spot runs through this fast-growing literature: every system gets analysed except the LLM-assisted tool doing the analysing, which is itself a safety-relevant system that can hallucinate standards, emit unverifiable constraints, and leave no audit trail from prompt to artifact. We take seriously the question the field has skipped -- {who analyses the analyser?} and answer it by turning STPA on the tool itself. We present {Constitutional Meta-STPA}, an LLM-assisted STPA tool built around a closed loop: the tool runs a {meta-STPA} of the class of AI-assisted safety tools and {derives} rather than asserts, its governance constitution from the resulting loss$\to$hazard$\to$UCA$\to$constraint chain, yielding a published constitution of $21$ Tool Principles and $8$ Meta-Safety Principles, each bound to a code enforcement point. We formalise the measured object as a constitution-marginal coverage operator over a principle set $P$ ($|P|{=}29$) with a soundness lemma that isolates coverage from model and scanner, and report four findings. {(i)~Self-derivation:} a frontier ensemble ({claude-opus-4.8}${+}${claude-sonnet-4}) recovers $18/21$ canonical and all $8/8$ governance principles from the tool's own design, while a weaker pair recovers $12/21$ and $3/8$, so the meta layer is model-limited, not constitution-limited, and the same $8/8$ re-emerge from a second, independently authored tool.

Tool-using LLM agents can violate the very policies they are deployed to enforce while appearing to complete the task successfully. In policy-permissive environments, a tool may execute any well-formed call even when the corresponding state transition is forbidden by domain policy. The result is a silent wrong state (a booking cancelled, a passenger count changed, a claim acted on without verification) that neither the tool nor the agent's self-report exposes. We study this failure mode in the $τ^2$-bench airline domain. On a budget agent, 78% of observed failures are silent wrong-state failures with no tool error, and the aggregate failure rate is reproducible across disjoint seeds, not sampling noise. We then evaluate a lightweight intervention: deterministic, read-only pre-execution gates that inspect the proposed call and current state before allowing a write. A four-gate suite raises full-benchmark success from 29.6% to 42.0% on gpt-4o-mini (+12.4pp; paired task-level bootstrap P=0.0012), and the lift reproduces on a disjoint 15-seed set (+12.3pp; P=0.0008). The effect is concentrated where the gates fire: on the 26/50 firing tasks, success rises by +19.2pp, while movement on the 24 non-firing tasks does not exclude zero. Two negative controls (a self-enforcing retail domain and BFCL) bound the mechanism: gates help when tools are policy-permissive and add little where tools already self-enforce. As suggestive evidence, not a central claim, the same failure mode persists at the frontier: gpt-5.2 at default reasoning still attempts policy-violating writes, and the same suite improves success from 61.2% to 71.6% (+10.4pp; P=0.020; n=5, no replication). The contribution is a bounded evaluation and reliability result: deterministic gates do not guarantee task success, but they can deterministically prevent a known class of silent policy-violating writes at the action boundary.

Reinforcement learning (RL) policies can be unsafe and vulnerable to attacks. Ensuring their reliability is often a pain point as existing automated testing methods target only selected environments, testing scenarios, and RL algorithms. To address this, we propose a comprehensive framework for testing single- and multi-agent RL policies under varying conditions. Our implementation of this framework, Gimitest, is an open-source tool that supports various gym frameworks and allows for modifications of their integrated components. This article describes the framework and details Gimitest's functionality and architecture. It showcases its effectiveness in testing multiple RL policies in environments such as the official Farama Gymnasium and PettingZoo.

Modern sequence models are increasingly deployed as agents that interleave token generation with calls to external tools. We give an exact, architecture-level account of when such tool access increases computational expressivity. We model any fixed finite-precision recurrent sequence model, including finite-precision state-space models (SSMs) with $B$ bits of internal state, as a deterministic finite-state controller interacting with an oracle through a finite command/observation interface. Our results form a sharp dichotomy. First, tools that are themselves finite-state add essentially nothing: a product-state simulation internalizes any finite-state bounded-interface oracle with finite memory set $M$ at a cost of only $\log_2 |M| + O(1)$ additional bits, so the augmented system remains finite-state. Second, a single minimal infinite-state tool, namely a tape supporting only local $\mathtt{read}$, $\mathtt{write}$, and $\mathtt{move}$ commands, makes the system Turing complete: for every single-tape Turing machine with state set $Q$ and tape alphabet $Γ$, a controller with $O(\log |Q| + \log |Γ|)$ bits of internal memory simulates it, and we exhibit a concrete exponential separation: $\mathrm{EQ}_n$ requires $2^n$ states without tools but a single constant-size controller with the tape tool. Third, we show that this construction is realized exactly by a natural one-layer finite-precision selective affine SSM controller with binary one-hot hidden states, $\{0,1\}$ transition matrices, and zero biases. Selectivity is essential to the construction. In the supplementary material, we make all constants explicit, prove a logarithmic oracle-assisted universal simulation, where $O(\log B)$ recurrent bits suffice to simulate any $B$-state Turing machine, and prove a matching impossibility result.

Tool-augmented large language models extend their capabilities beyond parametric knowledge through external tools, but tend to invoke them unnecessarily. We investigate whether tool-use decisions have any stable internal representation that can be extracted and manipulated, a question that is non-trivial given that tools exist entirely in context at inference time and have no direct encoding in model weights. We show that steering vectors extracted from heading-anchors positions exert bidirectional causal control over tool-invocation behavior across five open-source models and three domains, suppressing unnecessary tool use most effectively in domains where parametric reasoning suffices. However, geometric analysis reveals that this causal effectiveness does not correspond to clean linear structure: tool-invocation steps exhibit diffuse, bimodal alignment with the suppression vector rather than the consistent negative alignment a linear encoding account would predict, and different tool types recruit largely distinct internal signatures with low cross-tool feature overlap. We hypothesize these geometric properties are indicative of the non-parametric nature of tools, and distinguish tool-use steering vectors from those extracted for parametrically grounded concepts. The relationship between this geometric irregularity and the observed causal effectiveness remains an open question.

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.

Satisfiability modulo theory (SMT) solvers have significantly advanced automated reasoning due to their effectiveness in solving problems across various fields. With the advancement in SMT solvers, there is growing interest in exploring capabilities beyond mere satisfiability, similar to the progression observed in Boolean satisfiability solvers that expanded into counting and sampling. In this study, we investigate the following question: Can we rely on modern CNF model counters and CNF samplers to extend modern SMT solvers to handle the problems of counting and sampling over bit-vectors? The main contribution of this work is the development of an efficient and user-friendly tool, csb, that solves a bunch of problems around model counting and sampling on the theory of bit-vectors, namely exact and approximate projected and non-projected model counting, along with the almost-uniform and uniform-like sampling. In the case of exact counting, projected counting, and uniform sampling. Our tool csb converts the bit-vector formula into a CNF formula using bit-blasting techniques before applying CNF model counters or samplers to perform counting or sampling. Our experiments demonstrate significant performance improvements over existing methods.