# Red-Teaming Coding Agents from a Tool-Invocation Perspective: An Empirical Security Assessment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05755 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.05755/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 46 of its 91 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)
- LLM safety and security / [Prompt injection and agent security](https://mlsanity.com/safety/prompt-injection-and-agent-security/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 46)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05499/) (2023)
- [InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02691/) (2024)
- [Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14132/) (2023)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [Tool Learning with Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08354/) (2023)
- [AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05427/) (2024)
- [Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23278/) (2025)
- [RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17134/) (2024)
- [Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.17935/) (2024)
- [ToolACE: Winning the Points of LLM Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.00920/) (2024)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19793/) (2025)
- [EASYTOOL: Enhancing LLM-based Agents with Concise Tool Instruction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06201/) (2024)
- [AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13352/) (2024)
- [PLeak: Prompt Leaking Attacks against Large Language Model Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.06823/) (2024)
- [Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00061/) (2025)
- [Jina Embeddings 2: 8192-Token General-Purpose Text Embeddings for Long Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.19923/) (2023)
- [RedCode: Risky Code Execution and Generation Benchmark for Code Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.07781/) (2024)
- [ToolSword: Unveiling Safety Issues of Large Language Models in Tool Learning Across Three Stages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10753/) (2024)
- [Making Language Models Better Tool Learners with Execution Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13068/) (2023)
- [MCPTox: A Benchmark for Tool Poisoning Attack on Real-World MCP Servers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.14925/) (2025)
- [Confucius: Iterative Tool Learning from Introspection Feedback by Easy-to-Difficult Curriculum](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14034/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.10749/) (2026)
- [Security Considerations for Multi-agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09002/) (2026)
- [ShareLock: A Stealthy Multi-Tool Threshold Poisoning Attack Against MCP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.27027/) (2026)
- [Rule Taxonomy and Evolution in AI IDEs: A Mining and Survey Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.12231/) (2026)
- [A Security Analysis of Long-Horizon Agentic AI Systems: Threats, Evaluation, and Framework Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.14816/) (2026)
- [Where Is the Tradeoff in Using Third-Party API Routers for Agentic Software Development?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.23624/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents powered by large language models are becoming central modules of modern IDEs, helping users perform complex tasks by invoking tools. While powerful, tool invocation opens a substantial attack surface. Prior work has demonstrated attacks against general-purpose and domain-specific agents, but none have focused on the security risks of tool invocation in coding agents. To fill this gap, we conduct the first systematic red-teaming of six popular real-world coding agents: Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot, Windsurf, Cline, and Trae. Our red-teaming proceeds in two phases. In Phase 1, we perform prompt leakage reconnaissance to recover system prompts. We discover a general vulnerability, ToolLeak, which allows malicious prompt exfiltration through benign argument retrieval during tool invocation. In Phase 2, we hijack the agent's tool-invocation behavior using a novel two-channel prompt injection in the tool description and return values, achieving remote code execution (RCE). We adaptively construct payloads using security information leaked in Phase 1. In emulation across five backends, our method outperforms baselines on Claude-Sonnet-4, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, Grok-4, and GPT-5. On real agents, our approach succeeds on 19 of 25 agent-LLM pairs, achieving leakage on every agent using Claude and Grok backends. For tool-invocation hijacking, we obtain RCE on every tested agent-LLM pair, with our two-channel method delivering the highest success rate. We provide case studies on Cursor and Claude Code, analyze security guardrails of external and built-in tools, and conclude with practical defense recommendations.