Evaluating using Mock Tool Calls to Quarantine Untrusted Prompt Inputs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models must frequently process untrusted inputs, such as judging an answer from another model or running tasks like spam and harm classifiers while under adversarial pressure. These inputs are often string-formatted directly into a prompt template, leaving systems fragile to manipulation. Current LLM specs from major providers like OpenAI distinguish trustworthiness along an Instruction Hierarchy, from System messages (most trusted) to Tool Results (least trusted). A possible natural mitigation is to wrap untrusted content in a mock tool call as a quarantine. We explore this hypothesis with an automated redteaming search over static attack strings across seven models and three LLM-as-a-Judge tasks. Counter to our hypothesis, tool-wrapping does not broadly improve robustness. On a binary evaluation task (GSM8K grading) it typically increases attack success rates, an apparent inversion of the instruction hierarchy. On scalar and pairwise tasks the effect is smaller and model-dependent, with no tested model reliably helped, and several showing inversion. We recommend evaluating this limitation in deployed systems, and longer-term, pursuing stronger Instruction Hierarchy training or new untrusted-input primitives.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2026.
Builds on
24 of 33 references.
References · 24
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,326
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 778
- 2023Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automaticallycited by 619
- 2020On Adaptive Attacks to Adversarial Example Defensescited by 547
- 2024From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipelinecited by 484
- 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 441
- 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 325
- 2024Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Modelscited by 292
- 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 233
12 more
- 2024SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimizationcited by 179
- 2023Tensor Trust: Interpretable Prompt Injection Attacks from an Online Gamecited by 135
- 2024Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attack to LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 123
- 2024Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessmentcited by 117
- 2025IHEval: Evaluating Language Models on Following the Instruction Hierarchycited by 48
- 2025LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 33
- 2024ChatBug: A Common Vulnerability of Aligned LLMs Induced by Chat Templatescited by 29
- 2025ChatInject: Abusing Chat Templates for Prompt Injection in LLM Agentscited by 28
- 2024The Dark Side of Function Calling: Pathways to Jailbreaking Large Language Modelscited by 20
- 2024Virtual Context: Enhancing Jailbreak Attacks with Special Token Injectioncited by 16
- 2026IH-Challenge: A Training Dataset to Improve Instruction Hierarchy on Frontier LLMscited by 14
- 2026Many-Tier Instruction Hierarchy in LLM Agentscited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.