Tool-Use Evaluation

Tool-calling agents are evaluated on tool selection, parameter accuracy, and scope recognition, yet LLM trajectory assessments remain inherently post-hoc. Disconnected from the active execution loop, such assessments identify errors that are usually addressed through prompt-tuning or retraining, and fundamentally cannot course-correct the agent in real time. To close this gap, we move evaluation into the execution loop at inference time: a specialized reviewer agent evaluates provisional tool calls prior to execution, shifting the paradigm from post-hoc recovery to proactive evaluation and error mitigation. In practice, this architecture establishes a clear separation of concerns between the primary execution agent and a secondary review agent. As with any multi-agent system, the reviewer can introduce new errors while correcting others, yet no prior work to our knowledge has systematically measured this tradeoff. To quantify this tradeoff, we introduce Helpfulness-Harmfulness metrics: helpfulness measures the percentage of base agent errors that feedback corrects; harmfulness measures the percentage of correct responses that feedback degrades. These metrics directly inform reviewer design by revealing whether a given model or prompt provides net positive value. We evaluate our approach on BFCL (single-turn) and Tau2-Bench (multi-turn stateful scenarios), achieving +5.5% on irrelevance detection and +7.1% on multi-turn tasks. Our metrics reveal that reviewer model choice is critical: the reasoning model o3-mini achieves a 3:1 benefit-to-risk ratio versus 2.1:1 for GPT-4o. Automated prompt optimization via GEPA provides an additional +1.5-2.8%. Together, these results demonstrate a core advantage of separating execution and review: the reviewer can be systematically improved through model selection and prompt optimization, without retraining the base agent.

The development of general-purpose agents requires a shift from executing simple instructions to completing complex, real-world productivity workflows. However, current tool-use benchmarks remain misaligned with real-world requirements, relying on AI-generated queries, dummy tools, and limited system-level coordination. To address this, we propose GTA-2, a hierarchical benchmark for General Tool Agents (GTA) spanning atomic tool use and open-ended workflows. Built on real-world authenticity, it leverages real user queries, deployed tools, and multimodal contexts. (i) GTA-Atomic, inherited from our prior GTA benchmark, evaluates short-horizon, closed-ended tool-use precision. (ii) GTA-Workflow introduces long-horizon, open-ended tasks for realistic end-to-end completion. To evaluate open-ended deliverables, we propose a recursive checkpoint-based evaluation mechanism that decomposes objectives into verifiable sub-goals, enabling unified evaluation of both model capabilities and agent execution frameworks (i.e., execution harnesses). Experiments reveal a pronounced capability cliff: while frontier models already struggle on atomic tasks (below 50%), they largely fail on workflows, with top models achieving only 14.39% success. Further analysis shows that checkpoint-guided feedback improves performance, while advanced frameworks such as Manus and OpenClaw substantially enhance workflow completion, highlighting the importance of execution harness design beyond the underlying model capacity. These findings provide guidance for developing reliable personal and professional assistants. Dataset and code will be available at https://github.com/open-compass/GTA.

AI agents often pick tools from registries, where each tool's provider writes its description. We ask whether sales language in those descriptions changes which tool an agent picks. We built pairs of listings differing in one controlled way (added praise, a verifiable specification, or list order) and asked two OpenAI models to call one tool. In a preregistered study, stacked praise (four kinds combined) raised a tool's pick rate by about 43 percentage points, matching or beating a verifiable specification. Praise also pulled some picks toward tools that could not do the task, but rarely toward tools asking for unneeded data access. With identical listings, the first-listed tool was picked about 72 points more often. On tasks with numeric limits, structured fields helped agents pick the capable tool; adding the provider's sales text beside the fields reduced or erased that gain. Registries could list limits as fields, hide sales text from agents, and randomize order. Stacked praise, but no single kind, replicated on held-out domains. Results are provisional until blind phrase ratings are complete, and cover two small models.

As web agents rapidly evolve, an increasing body of work has moved beyond conventional atomic browser interactions and explored tool use as a higher-level action paradigm. Although prior studies have shown the promise of tools, their conclusions are often drawn from limited experimental scales and sometimes non-comparable settings. As a result, several fundamental questions remain unclear: i) whether tools provide consistent gains for web agents, ii) what practical design principles characterize effective tools, and iii) what side effects tool use may introduce. To establish a stronger empirical foundation for future research, we revisit tool use in web agents through an extensive and carefully controlled study across diverse tool sources, backbone models, tool-use frameworks, and evaluation benchmarks. Our findings both revise some prior conclusions and complement others with broader evidence. We hope this study provides a more reliable empirical basis and inspires future research on tool-use web agents.

Agents that synthesize their own tools ship a second artifact alongside each answer: a software library that future tasks reuse, compose, and depend on. Task completion (TC) certifies the answer; it does not certify the library. On a Claude Haiku 4.5 pilot, we patch the harness to preserve per-tool source and replay every synthesised tool against a held-out conformance suite. Across 222 preserved tools and three protocols, 96.8% record per-tool correctness C=0.00: two protocols silent-rot at 100%, one at 91.7%. Hand-written reference implementations score C=1.00 on all 16 capability suites. The synthesised tools execute cleanly and the in-session verifier raises no flag; on held-out inputs they simply return wrong answers. This is the verification-vs.-conformance gap a pass-rate benchmark cannot see. EvolveTool-Bench makes that gap measurable. Sessions are structured into seed, gap, variant, composition, regression, and adversarial roles; runs emit per-tool manifests, verified-subset TC, correct-vs.-incorrect reuse, and audit traces for post-deployment monitoring. In the Haiku pilot over five protocols (3 seeds, 8 sessions, 51 verified decisions per pass), TC alone does not separate the protocols; the audit layer does. One pre-specified contrast shows the adapted decision-split synthesis protocol underperforming one-shot synthesis (-7.1 pp, 95% CI [-13.9,-0.1]; not significant after BH correction) -- a hypothesis-generating signal, not a confirmed effect. We release the harness, per-tool source preservation, conformance replay, and reproducibility manifests. An audit schema of this shape -- verifier coverage, reuse decomposition, held-out conformance -- is the minimum a deployed tool-evolving agent should emit between releases.

Solving problems through tool use under explicit constraints constitutes a highly challenging yet unavoidable scenario for large language models (LLMs), requiring capabilities such as function calling, instruction following, and self-refinement. However, progress has been hindered by the absence of dedicated evaluations. To address this, we introduce CCTU, a benchmark for evaluating LLM tool use under complex constraints. CCTU is grounded in a taxonomy of 12 constraint categories spanning four dimensions (i.e., resource, behavior, toolset, and response). The benchmark comprises 200 carefully curated and challenging test cases across diverse tool-use scenarios, each involving an average of seven constraint types and an average prompt length exceeding 4,700 tokens. To enable reliable evaluation, we develop an executable constraint validation module that performs step-level validation and enforces compliance during multi-turn interactions between models and their environments. We evaluate nine state-of-the-art LLMs in both thinking and non-thinking modes. Results indicate that when strict adherence to all constraints is required, no model achieves a task completion rate above 20%. Further analysis reveals that models violate constraints in over 50% of cases, particularly in the resource and response dimensions. Moreover, LLMs demonstrate limited capacity for self-refinement even after receiving detailed feedback on constraint violations, highlighting a critical bottleneck in the development of robust tool-use agents. To facilitate future research, we release the data and code.

Evaluating conversational AI systems that use external tools is challenging, as errors can arise from complex interactions among user, agent, and tools. While existing evaluation methods assess either user satisfaction or agents' tool-calling capabilities, they fail to capture critical errors in multi-turn tool-augmented dialogues-such as when agents misinterpret tool results yet appear satisfactory to users. We introduce TRACE, a benchmark of systematically synthesized tool-augmented conversations covering diverse error cases. Evaluation with state-of-the-art conversation evaluation frameworks reveals that all approaches remain far from ideal performance, demonstrating the fundamental difficulty of this benchmark.