# Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01416 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.01416/

## 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 8 of its 11 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [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)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06112/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [ToolChoiceConfusion: Causal Minimal Tool Filtering for Reliable LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.06284/) (2026)
- [Capability Minimization as a Safety Primitive: Risk-Aware Causal Gating for Least-Privilege LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.13884/) (2026)
- [Contract2Tool: Learning Preconditions and Effects for Reliable Tool-Augmented LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.07904/) (2026)
- [ToolMenuBench: Benchmarking Tool-Menu Filtering Strategies for Reliable and Efficient LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15508/) (2026)
- [GIST-CMTF: Goal-State Inference for Causal Minimal Tool Filtering in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16813/) (2026)
- [Schema-First Retrieval: Embedding Catalogs for Natural Language Analytics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.28387/) (2026)
- [What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39989/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents rely on orchestration layers that coordinate planning, retrieval, tool invocation, validation, memory, and recovery. In these systems, failures arise not only from model errors, but also from orchestration-level issues such as tool timeouts, malformed arguments, stale context, contradictory evidence, retry loops, and unverified intermediate outputs. This paper presents a self-healing agentic orchestrator that treats reliability as a bounded runtime control problem. The orchestrator maps observable failure signals to inferred failure classes, selects targeted recovery actions under explicit budgets, verifies recovered trajectories, and records observability traces. We evaluate the approach on a 100-task controlled fault-injection benchmark against static workflow, retry-only, ReAct-style, and full-replanning baselines. Self-healing achieves 98.8% task success, compared with 94.5% for retry-only and 93.8% for full replanning. A matched recovery-budget sweep shows that self-healing outperforms retry-only and full replanning at every tested budget, with the largest gap under a single recovery attempt: 94.0% versus 85.3% and 88.2%, respectively. Under a controlled semantic silent-failure setting, verifier-guided self-healing reduces silent failures to 0.0%, while non-verifying baselines return wrong-but-plausible outputs more often. A compact model-in-the-loop validation shows that the same recovery mechanism can operate when a live tool-calling model performs tool selection, argument generation, and answer synthesis over local fault-injected tools. These results provide controlled evidence that failure-aware, budgeted, and verification-guided orchestration improves reliability and diagnosability in tool-augmented LLM systems.