mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ToolMenuBench: Benchmarking Tool-Menu Filtering Strategies for Reliable and Efficient LLM Agents

arXiv 2606.15508 ↗First posted 13 Jun 2026cs.AIcited by 5

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-augmented large language model agents increasingly operate over large tool libraries, but existing evaluations often focus on whether a model can call a tool correctly rather than how the visible tool menu shapes reliability, efficiency, and safety-relevant risk exposure. We introduce ToolMenuBench, a benchmark for evaluating tool-menu construction in multi-step LLM agents. ToolMenuBench varies tool-menu size, distractor type, state-dependent task structure, and risk exposure, and reports both filter-level and downstream agent metrics, including visible-tool count, risky-tool exposure, task success, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and token usage. In a controlled evaluation across seven model backends, three tool-menu sizes, six filtering methods, and seven evaluation settings, CMTF improves task success from 32.1% under all-tools exposure to 85.7%, while reducing average token usage by roughly 98%. Causal minimal tool filtering achieves the strongest overall tradeoff, reducing visible tools, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and risky-tool exposure relative to unfiltered exposure, lexical filtering, state-aware filtering, and broader causal-path baselines. ToolMenuBench provides a reusable evaluation framework for studying the agent-interface problem: which tools should be visible, when they should be visible, and under what cost or risk constraints.

Key facts. Cited by 5 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 8 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2026.

Builds on

8 of 11 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026ToolChoiceConfusion: Causal Minimal Tool Filtering for Reliable LLM Agents4 Jun
  2. 2026Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems31 May
  3. 2025ToolScope: Enhancing LLM Agent Tool Use through Tool Merging and Context-Aware Filtering22 Oct
  4. 2025Retrieval Models Aren't Tool-Savvy: Benchmarking Tool Retrieval for Large Language Models3 Mar
  5. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs31 Jul
  6. 2023API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs14 Apr
  7. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools9 Feb

Other references · 1

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ToolFailBench: Diagnosing Tool-Use Failures in LLM Agents
  2. 2026OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction
  3. 2026ToolRobustBench: Stage-Wise Perturbation Evaluation and Failure Diagnosis for Tool-Calling Agents
  4. 2025TRAJECT-Bench:A Trajectory-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Tool Use
  5. 2026DOCSCHISEL: Adaptive Tool Documentation Optimization Framework for LLM Agents
  6. 2026AgentJudgeBench: A Multi-Difficulty Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Judges on Agentic Tool-Calling
  7. 2026Action-Space Shaping for LLM Agents: Measuring and Mitigating Tool-Schema Bias
  8. 2025Tool Preferences in Agentic LLMs are Unreliable