CCTU: A Benchmark for Tool Use under Complex Constraints
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 21 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.
Builds on
21 of 36 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2025FamilyTool: A Multi-hop Personalized Tool Use Benchmark9 Apr
- 2025ToolHop: A Query-Driven Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Hop Tool Use5 Jan
- 2024Budget-Constrained Tool Learning with Planning25 Feb
- 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs31 Jul
- 2023ToolQA: A Dataset for LLM Question Answering with External Tools23 Jun
- 2023ToolAlpaca: Generalized Tool Learning for Language Models with 3000 Simulated Cases8 Jun
- 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs24 May
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools9 Feb
Other references · 13
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,439
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2025DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Modelscited by 815
- 2026Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligencecited by 501
- 2024AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agentscited by 401
- 2025MultiChallenge: A Realistic Multi-Turn Conversation Evaluation Benchmark Challenging to Frontier LLMscited by 180
- 2023T-Eval: Evaluating the Tool Utilization Capability of Large Language Models Step by Stepcited by 93
- 2023COLLIE: Systematic Construction of Constrained Text Generation Taskscited by 70
- 2025InverseBench: Benchmarking Plug-and-Play Diffusion Priors for Inverse Problems in Physical Sciencescited by 68
- 2025AGENTIF: Benchmarking Instruction Following of Large Language Models in Agentic Scenarioscited by 49
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026Temporary Authority, Permanent Effects: Commit-Time Authorization for LLM Agentscited by 18
- 2026Many-Tier Instruction Hierarchy in LLM Agentscited by 6
- 2026PeakBench: Benchmarking Resource-Aware Tool Invocation in LLM Agentscited by 2
- 2026RECAP: Regression Evaluation for Continual Adaptation of Promptscited by 0
- 2026Policy-Masked Private Experts: Auditable and Reversible Capability Access Control in Sparse MoE Modelscited by 0
- 2026Large Language Models Can Follow Instructions, But Not Many at Once: Phase Transitions in Compositional Constraint Satisfactioncited by 0
- 2026MTAC-IFBench: Benchmarking Instruction-Following in Multi-Turn Agentic Codingcited by 0
- 2026MTAC-IFBench: Benchmarking Instruction-Following in Multi-Turn Agentic Coding14 Sep 2026
- 2026PeakBench: Benchmarking Resource-Aware Tool Invocation in LLM Agents25 Aug 2026
- 2026Large Language Models Can Follow Instructions, But Not Many at Once: Phase Transitions in Compositional Constraint Satisfaction12 Aug 2026
- 2026Policy-Masked Private Experts: Auditable and Reversible Capability Access Control in Sparse MoE Models7 Aug 2026
- 2026Temporary Authority, Permanent Effects: Commit-Time Authorization for LLM Agents11 Jul 2026
- 2026RECAP: Regression Evaluation for Continual Adaptation of Prompts4 Jun 2026
- 2026Many-Tier Instruction Hierarchy in LLM Agents10 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024ToolEyes: Fine-Grained Evaluation for Tool Learning Capabilities of Large Language Models in Real-world Scenarios
- 2024Benchmarking Large Language Models on Controllable Generation under Diversified Instructions
- 2024WTU-EVAL: A Whether-or-Not Tool Usage Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models
- 2025Large-Scale Constraint Generation -- Can LLMs Parse Hundreds of Constraints?
- 2025RECAST: Expanding the Boundaries of LLMs' Complex Instruction Following with Multi-Constraint Data
- 2025AskToAct: Enhancing LLMs Tool Use via Self-Correcting Clarification
- 2025ACEBench: Who Wins the Match Point in Tool Usage?
- 2025MCP-RADAR: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating Tool Use Capabilities in Large Language Models