# Depth-Dependent Indirect Prompt Injection in Tool-Calling ReAct Agents: Injection Depth, Payload Framing, and Turn-Budget Sensitivity

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30686 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30686/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 11 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- 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, 11 of 11)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [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)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05174/) (2025)
- [AttriGuard: Defeating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Causal Attribution of Tool Invocations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.10749/) (2026)
- [ICON: Indirect Prompt Injection Defense for Agents based on Inference-Time Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.20708/) (2026)
- [Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection via Tool Result Parsing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04795/) (2026)
- [SafeAgent: A Runtime Protection Architecture for Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.17562/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

ReAct agents that interleave chain-of-thought reasoning with tool calls are increasingly deployed for real tasks such as scheduling, file retrieval, and data access. Their tool observation loop creates a direct attack surface: an adversary who controls any tool's return value can embed instructions that redirect the agent away from the user's goal, a threat known as indirect prompt injection. Existing benchmarks evaluate attack success rate (ASR) at a fixed injection position under fixed conditions, leaving three risk dimensions unexplored: where in the tool sequence the payload appears (injection depth), what rhetorical register it uses (framing), and how many turns the agent is permitted (turn cap). We conduct four controlled studies on 20 scenarios spanning five attack categories, totalling 460 trials against GPT-4o-mini and Claude Haiku at a combined API cost under 0.36 USD. Study 1 shows that ASR against GPT-4o-mini decays from 60% at depth 1 to 0% at depths 4 and 5 (Cramer's V = 0.58, p < 0.001; restricted to within-sequence depths 1-3: V = 0.47, p = 0.0013), driven by model resistance at depth 1 and task completion before payload encounter at deeper positions. Study 2 replicates the depth experiment on Claude Haiku, which achieves 0% ASR at every depth through a combination of conservative tool invocation and genuine instruction resistance. Study 3 shows that framing modulates ASR between 25% (neutral) and 75% (persona) at depth 1, a 50-percentage-point range that does not reach statistical significance at N = 20 per condition. Study 4 confirms that ASR is stable across turn caps of 3, 5, and 7, indicating the turn budget is not a risk factor in this setting. Our results establish injection depth as the dominant variable and show that sanitising only the first tool observation captures 67% of measured injection successes.