mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

More Vulnerable than You Think: On the Stability of Tool-Integrated LLM Agents

arXiv 2506.21967 ↗First posted 27 Jun 2025cs.CL cs.LGcited by 2

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Current evaluations of tool-integrated LLM agents typically focus on end-to-end tool-usage evaluation while neglecting their stability. This limits their real-world applicability, as various internal or external factors can cause agents to crash or behave abnormally. Our research addresses this by investigating whether agents are vulnerable to errors throughout the entire tool invocation process, including reading tool documentation, selecting tools and generating parameters, and processing the tool's response. Through extensive experiments, we observe that agents are highly susceptible to errors at each stage and agents based on open-source models are more vulnerable than those based on proprietary models. We also find that increasing the model size does not significantly improve tool invocation reasoning and may make agents more vulnerable to attacks resembling normal user instructions. This highlights the importance of evaluating agent stability and offers valuable insights for future LLM development and evaluation.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 16 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2025.

Builds on

16 of 16 references.

References · 16

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  3. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  4. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  5. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  6. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,880
  7. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  8. 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIscited by 1,302
  9. 2024Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 221
  10. 2023MetaTool Benchmark for Large Language Models: Deciding Whether to Use Tools and Which to Usecited by 209
  11. 2024EASYTOOL: Enhancing LLM-based Agents with Concise Tool Instructioncited by 153
  12. 2023RestGPT: Connecting Large Language Models with Real-World RESTful APIscited by 129
4 more
  1. 2024Watch Every Step! LLM Agent Learning via Iterative Step-Level Process Refinementcited by 86
  2. 2024Reducing Tool Hallucination via Reliability Alignmentcited by 37
  3. 2025MPO: Boosting LLM Agents with Meta Plan Optimizationcited by 36
  4. 2024Quantifying stability of non-power-seeking in artificial agentscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Butterfly Effects in Toolchains: A Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Parameter Filling in LLM Tool-Agent Systems
  2. 2025Tool Preferences in Agentic LLMs are Unreliable
  3. 2026Isolation as a First-Class Principle for LLM-Agent System Safety: Concepts, Taxonomy, Challenges and Future Directions
  4. 2026When Agents Fail to Act: A Diagnostic Framework for Tool Invocation Reliability in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  5. 2026Who Tests the Testers? Systematic Enumeration and Coverage Audit of LLM Agent Tool Call Safety
  6. 2026Verified Tool Calls Improve LLM Agent Reliability Under Non-Atomic Failures
  7. 2026When Lower Privileges Suffice: Investigating Over-Privileged Tool Selection in LLM Agents
  8. 2026MANTRA: Synthesizing SMT-Validated Compliance Benchmarks for Tool-Using LLM Agents