mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ToolChoiceConfusion: Causal Minimal Tool Filtering for Reliable LLM Agents

arXiv 2606.06284 ↗First posted 4 Jun 2026cs.AIcited by 9

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model agents increasingly rely on external tools, but larger tool menus can reduce reliability and efficiency by increasing wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and token cost. Existing tool-selection methods often optimize semantic relevance, exposing tools whose names or descriptions match the user request. We argue that relevance is insufficient: a tool may be related to the task while still being unnecessary or premature at the current step. We propose Causal Minimal Tool Filtering (CMTF), a training-free method that selects tools by causal sufficiency. CMTF uses lightweight precondition-effect contracts to expose only the minimal next-step tool frontier needed to advance from the current state toward the user goal. Across multi-step tool-use tasks, we compare CMTF with all-tools exposure, keyword retrieval, state-aware filtering, and causal-path ablations, measuring task success, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, tool exposure, and token cost. In the main benchmark with 102 tasks, 100 tools, four LLM backends, and 2448 task-method-model runs, CMTF matches the strongest causal baseline in aggregate success while reducing visible tools from 100 to one per step and reducing token usage by about 90% relative to all-tools exposure.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2026.

Builds on

10 of 17 references.

Closest ancestors · 8

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems31 May
  2. 2026How Many Tools Should an LLM Agent See? A Chance-Corrected Answer23 May
  3. 2025ToolScope: Enhancing LLM Agent Tool Use through Tool Merging and Context-Aware Filtering22 Oct
  4. 2025RAG-MCP: Mitigating Prompt Bloat in LLM Tool Selection via Retrieval-Augmented Generation6 May
  5. 2025Retrieval Models Aren't Tool-Savvy: Benchmarking Tool Retrieval for Large Language Models3 Mar
  6. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs31 Jul
  7. 2023API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs14 Apr
  8. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools9 Feb

Other references · 2

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.

9 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026JTPRO: A Joint Tool-Prompt Reflective Optimization Framework for Language Agents
  2. 2026Tools Are Not Islands: Set-Level Tool Retrieval for LLM Agents via Query-Conditioned Hyperedge Prediction
  3. 2025GRETEL: A Goal-driven Retrieval and Execution-based Trial Framework for LLM Tool Selection Enhancing
  4. 2026ToolSearcher: Optimizing Tool Selection at Scale via Reinforcement Learning
  5. 2026Toolcompass: Guiding Tool Trialing, Not Suppressing It
  6. 2026ToolFlood: Beyond Selection -- Hiding Valid Tools from LLM Agents via Semantic Covering
  7. 2026OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction
  8. 2026SING: Synthetic Intention Graph for Scalable Active Tool Discovery in LLM Agents