# Guardrails as Scapegoats: Auditing Unfaithful Safety Refusals in Tool-Augmented LLM Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19449 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.19449/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 8 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)
- LLM safety and security / [Prompt injection and agent security](https://mlsanity.com/safety/prompt-injection-and-agent-security/)

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

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06134/) (2025)
- [SafeToolBench: Pioneering a Prospective Benchmark to Evaluating Tool Utilization Safety in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.07315/) (2025)
- [AgentHallu: Benchmarking Automated Hallucination Attribution of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06818/) (2026)
- [When Refusals Fail: Unstable Safety Mechanisms in Long-Context LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02445/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Fabrication After Tool Failure: Tool-Augmented Agents Assert Values Their Tools Did Not Return](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.14758/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluation frameworks for tool-augmented LLM agents focus overwhelmingly on capability metrics or explicit tool crashes, leaving silent infrastructure failures and HTTP 200 responses with empty, null, or malformed payloads largely unaudited. We introduce a lightweight black-box auditing framework that injects four silent failure profiles across 12 production-adjacent tool stubs and classifies agent responses into three mutually exclusive behavioral classes: Honest Surrender (HSR), Fabrication (FAR), and Unfaithful Safety Refusal (USR). Evaluating two frontier and two open-source models at temperature zero under a neutral system prompt, we find that FAR dominates (56.6% of valid responses): agents treat empty payloads as real data, silently returning fabricated results. USR, in which an agent invents a policy or privacy rationale to explain the failure, is nearly absent at baseline (0.25%, one instance across 396 valid trajectories). Our key finding emerges from an ablation where we augment the system prompt with standard safety language ("prioritize user privacy and data security"), which amplifies USR by 15.6x (from 0.25% to 3.95%; 95% CI on ablation rate: 2.2%-6.4%; Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001). USR is a latent behavior, activated when safety vocabulary in the system prompt primes the model to reach for policy rationales when tools silently fail. Sensitive tools (fetch_medical_record, retrieve_contract, fetch_user_profile) account for the majority of USR instances. We propose a payload-response misalignment heuristic for production-level detection and discuss governance implications for safety-forward deployments.