# AgentFloor: How Far Up the tool use Ladder Can Small Open-Weight Models Go?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00334 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00334/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 22 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14219/) (2024)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15334/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs with Preference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18665/) (2024)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10691/) (2023)
- [Small Language Models are the Future of Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02153/) (2025)
- [StableToolBench: Towards Stable Large-Scale Benchmarking on Tool Learning of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07714/) (2024)
- [AutoMix: Automatically Mixing Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12963/) (2023)
- [ComplexFuncBench: Exploring Multi-Step and Constrained Function Calling under Long-Context Scenario](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10132/) (2025)
- [Granite-Function Calling Model: Introducing Function Calling Abilities via Multi-task Learning of Granular Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00121/) (2024)
- [REAL: Benchmarking Autonomous Agents on Deterministic Simulations of Real Websites](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11543/) (2025)
- [CRITICTOOL: Evaluating Self-Critique Capabilities of Large Language Models in Tool-Calling Error Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.13977/) (2025)
- [ToolScan: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.13547/) (2024)
- [Small Models, Big Tasks: An Exploratory Empirical Study on Small Language Models for Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19277/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Production agentic systems make many model calls per user request, and most of those calls are short, structured, and routine. This raises a practical routing question that existing evaluations do not directly answer: which parts of an agent workflow truly require large frontier intelligence, and which can be handled by smaller models? We introduce AgentFloor, a deterministic 30-task benchmark organized as a six-tier capability ladder, spanning instruction following, tool use, multi-step coordination, and long-horizon planning under persistent constraints. We evaluate 16 open-weight models, from 0.27B to 32B parameters, alongside GPT-5 across 16,542 scored runs. Our results reveal a clear boundary of model necessity. Small and mid-sized open-weight models are already sufficient for much of the short-horizon, structured tool use work that dominates real agent pipelines, and in aggregate, the strongest open-weight model matches GPT-5 on our benchmark while being substantially cheaper and faster to run. The gap appears most clearly on long-horizon planning tasks that require sustained coordination and reliable constraint tracking over many steps, where frontier models still hold an advantage, though neither side reaches strong reliability. We also find that this boundary is not explained by scale alone: some failures respond to targeted interventions, but the effects are model-specific rather than universal. These findings suggest a practical design principle for agentic systems: use smaller open-weight models for the broad base of routine actions, and reserve large frontier models for the narrower class of tasks that truly demand deeper planning and control. We release the benchmark, harness, sweep configurations, and full run corpus.