mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Entity Binding Failures in Tool-Augmented Agents

arXiv 2606.30531 ↗First posted 29 Jun 2026cs.AIcited by 3

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-augmented language-model agents are often evaluated by whether they select the correct tool, produce valid API arguments, and complete the requested task. However, an agent may choose the right tool and still act on the wrong external entity. For example, a request to "email Alex about the launch" may lead the agent to contact the wrong Alex, attach the wrong launch document, reply in the wrong thread, or update the wrong customer account. We call these errors entity binding failures. This paper studies entity binding failures as a distinct reliability and safety problem in tool-augmented agents. We formalize the separation between tool correctness and entity correctness, introduce a taxonomy of wrong-entity failures in enterprise workflows, and evaluate entity-aware execution mechanisms including entity-resolution preconditions, confidence-gated binding, clarification under ambiguity, and provenance tracking. In a controlled diagnostic evaluation across 60 tasks, five model backends, and six tool-use methods, all methods achieved 0.0 percent wrong-tool error, yet action-oriented baselines still produced wrong-entity actions in 24.0-26.0 percent of runs. Entity-aware methods eliminated wrong-entity actions and risk-weighted wrong-entity exposure in this setting, but reduced direct task completion by deferring under ambiguity. These findings show that safe tool use requires not only selecting the correct tool, but also reliably binding natural-language references to the correct real-world entity before action.

Key facts. Cited by 3 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 9 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.

Builds on

9 of 11 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026GIST-CMTF: Goal-State Inference for Causal Minimal Tool Filtering in LLM Agents15 Jun
  2. 2026ToolMenuBench: Benchmarking Tool-Menu Filtering Strategies for Reliable and Efficient LLM Agents13 Jun
  3. 2026ToolChoiceConfusion: Causal Minimal Tool Filtering for Reliable LLM Agents4 Jun
  4. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs31 Jul
  5. 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs24 May
  6. 2023API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs14 Apr
  7. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools9 Feb

Other references · 2

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Legible Failures: Detecting and Repairing In-Context Binding Errors
  2. 2026Tool Calling is Linearly Readable and Steerable in Language Models
  3. 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
  4. 2026Beyond Function Calling: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents under Tool-Environment Unreliability
  5. 2026When Tool Calls Succeed but Workflows Fail: Anomalies at the Agent-Tool Boundary
  6. 2026ToolMisuseBench: An Offline Deterministic Benchmark for Tool Misuse and Recovery in Agentic Systems
  7. 2026ToolRobustBench: Stage-Wise Perturbation Evaluation and Failure Diagnosis for Tool-Calling Agents
  8. 2025PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Cases