The Bitter Lesson of Tool Calling

ToolRobustBench: Stage-Wise Perturbation Evaluation and Failure Diagnosis for Tool-Calling Agents

Large language models (LLMs) rely on tool calling as a fundamental agent capability, enabling them to invoke external systems and complete tasks beyond text generation. However, clean end-to-end (E2E) success cannot identify where a tool-use failure originates or how it propagates through a call. We introduce ToolRobustBench, a stage-wise diagnostic benchmark for tool-calling agents, where a tool-calling agent is an LLM system that selects a tool, supplies structured arguments, and interprets its returned feedback. ToolRobustBench aligns four perturbation families with the tool-use pipeline: tool-interface, user-intent, tool-output/observation, and runtime-environment perturbations. It attributes failures to tool selection, schema grounding, argument binding, tool-output/runtime-feedback handling, and E2E task success. Experiments on 15,456 single-family instances across 7 models, 16 sampled local tools, 4 perturbation families, and 14 subtypes show high but non-uniform clean performance and substantial robustness degradation, with tool-output/observation perturbation the dominant bottleneck. Mixed-family experiments reveal non-additive failure patterns that are not explained by isolated single-family results. Thus, ToolRobustBench provides a deterministic and cascade-aware benchmark for diagnosing robustness beyond clean tool-calling accuracy;

OoO-Spec: Out-of-Order Semantic Speculation for Fast Tool Calling

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.

Torchy: A Tracing JIT Compiler for PyTorch (Extended Version)

LangChoiceBench: Measuring and Explaining Programming-Language Choice in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit strong Python preferences when generating project-level code, but there is currently no systematic way to measure this behaviour across new models. To bridge this gap, we introduce LangChoiceBench, a project-level code-generation benchmark for measuring Python preference, recommendation-implementation consistency, and language diversity. LangChoiceBench covers 28 projects across seven software areas where Python is often a poor default. We evaluate 25 diverse LLMs and find that Python remains heavily over-selected, recommendation-implementation consistency is low, and smaller open-weight models generally show stronger Python preference and lower language diversity. We further analyse 9,826 reasoning traces and find that most Python choices are automatic or driven primarily by ease, rather than explicit consideration of project requirements. In a smaller but important set of cases, models fabricate contextual support for choosing Python - a failure mode we call phantom evidence - or produce code that contradicts the language selected in their own reasoning.

Looped Language Models Improve Compositional Tool Calling

This work evaluates native and retrofitted looped language models on API-Bank, BFCL, and NESTful, comparing looped and non-looped models trained under matched supervised fine-tuning recipes and varying recurrent depth at inference time to suggest that looped language models are a promising architecture for agentic systems that require reliable planning, coordination, and execution of compositional tool use workflows.

Tunable Tool-Call Rates in LLM Agents via Representation Steering

Deciding whether to call a tool is a core competence of an LLM agent, and a costly one to get wrong: needless calls add latency, accrue cost, and may trigger irreversible side effects, while missing calls leave the model confidently wrong on questions it could only answer through tool-calls. Models manage this balance poorly, both over-using and under-using tools. Existing methods such as post-training and prompt engineering are expensive and difficult to modify at inference time. We show that whether an instruction-tuned model calls a tool can be controlled by a single linear direction in its residual stream, extracted without any training from the model's own tool-use preference signal and turned into an inference-time intervention with no prompt change. Adding the direction with strength $\alpha$ moves the call rate monotonically from near $0\% $ to over $90\%$ while keeping calls well-formed. The steering works in both directions: dialing it down suppresses calls, and dialing it up induces new calls that land precisely on the questions the model cannot answer from its own knowledge. We also show that the direction generalizes to unseen tools with strength comparable to each tool's own direction and without favoring any specific tool choice. With live tool execution, a single sweep of the steering traces a cost/accuracy Pareto frontier and nearly doubles open-domain QA accuracy ($0.29 \! \rightarrow \! 0.56$); the same recipe transfers across a diverse range of models spanning dense, MoE, and multimodal architectures, without any training. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/YuqiChen4188/Steering-Tool-Use-Propensity.