# The Remarkable Effectiveness of Providing AI Agents with Natural Language Tools: A Replication Study Validating NLT Performance Across 14 Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03953 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.03953/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 11 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [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)
- [Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.07350/) (2021)
- [Augmented Language Models: a Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.07842/) (2023)
- [Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12206/) (2020)
- [Tool Learning with Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08354/) (2023)
- [System 2 Attention (is something you might need too)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.11829/) (2023)
- [ToolFlow: Boosting LLM Tool-Calling Through Natural and Coherent Dialogue Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18447/) (2024)
- [CallNavi, A Challenge and Empirical Study on LLM Function Calling and Routing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.05255/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This study independently replicates and extends the Natural Language Tools (NLT) framework of Johnson et al.~(2025), which questions the use of structured tool calling in large language model (LLM) agentic systems. We evaluated NLT across 14 models and 8,560 trials, adding newer frontier, reasoning, and open-weight models to the original set. The results confirm the core findings and add detail. NLT improves tool-calling accuracy by 14.9 percentage points overall (62.3% versus 47.4% structured) and reduces critical errors by 93% (51 versus 755 errors). The gains depend on model capability: models without native tool calling, reasoning models, and smaller models gain substantially (+24.0pp to +43.1pp), while heavily optimized frontier models (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro) show smaller or reversed advantages. This matches recent analyses of reinforcement-learning-optimized tool use (Martinez, 2025). NLT also cuts token usage by 25.2%. The reliability and efficiency advantages compound in recursive agentic workflows, where agents chain many tool calls across sub-agents: a structured failure triggers retries, fallback routing, and coordination overhead, while NLT avoids most of that cost at the source. This work makes three contributions: (1) the first independent validation of NLT using open-source tooling, (2) evidence that model capability moderates NLT's advantages (Chen et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025), and (3) a measurement of NLT's reliability benefit (93% fewer errors), its most deployment-relevant property given the known fragility of structured tool calling. NLT is a practical alternative to structured tool calling, especially for production systems that value reliability over parseability.