Verified Tool Calls Improve LLM Agent Reliability Under Non-Atomic Failures
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Model (LLM) agents rely on external tools to perform multistage tasks. Existing agent frameworks typically assume that tool calls are atomic and return binary success or failure signals. However, real-world systems exhibit non-atomic behaviors such as timeouts after dispatch, delayed visibility, and partial state updates. These mismatches lead to reliability issues including duplicate actions, task success, and unnecessary tool executions. A lightweight, verification-aware tool wrapper is introduced that augments tool calls with postcondition verification, verify-before-retry logic, and idempotency keys. The approach is evaluated in a controlled simulated environment with injected non-atomic failures across multiple task templates. The results demonstrate that the proposed method significantly reduces duplicate actions, while maintaining comparable task success rates. Overall, the findings suggest that strengthening tool interaction semantics is a promising direction for improving LLM agent reliability without requiring modifications to the underlying language model.
Key facts. Cited by 6 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 4 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2026.
Builds on
4 of 16 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.
6 papers.
- 2026FinalityBench: An Effect-Level Benchmark for Agent Decisions Under Delayed and Conflicting Financial Finalitycited by 1
- 2026Callability Is Not Operability: Controlled Interface Interventions for LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026Toolcompass: Guiding Tool Trialing, Not Suppressing Itcited by 0
- 2026Where Does Exactly-Once Live? Model, Harness, and Tool-Contract Effects on Duplicate Side Effects in LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026Stale Does Not Mean Unsafe: Guard Precision for Tool-Using LLM Agents under Infrastructure State Racescited by 0
- 2026Beyond Approved Actions: Runtime Validation of Persistent Outcomes in Agent Workflowscited by 0
- 2026Beyond Approved Actions: Runtime Validation of Persistent Outcomes in Agent Workflows25 Sep 2026
- 2026Where Does Exactly-Once Live? Model, Harness, and Tool-Contract Effects on Duplicate Side Effects in LLM Agents24 Sep 2026
- 2026Toolcompass: Guiding Tool Trialing, Not Suppressing It22 Sep 2026
- 2026FinalityBench: An Effect-Level Benchmark for Agent Decisions Under Delayed and Conflicting Financial Finality4 Sep 2026
- 2026Stale Does Not Mean Unsafe: Guard Precision for Tool-Using LLM Agents under Infrastructure State Races25 Aug 2026
- 2026Callability Is Not Operability: Controlled Interface Interventions for LLM Agents23 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026How Consistent Are LLM Agents? Measuring Behavioral Reproducibility in Multi-Step Tool-Calling Pipelines
- 2025Butterfly Effects in Toolchains: A Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Parameter Filling in LLM Tool-Agent Systems
- 2026Beyond Function Calling: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents under Tool-Environment Unreliability
- 2026MANTRA: Synthesizing SMT-Validated Compliance Benchmarks for Tool-Using LLM Agents
- 2026Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems
- 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestration
- 2026ToolRobustBench: Stage-Wise Perturbation Evaluation and Failure Diagnosis for Tool-Calling Agents
- 2026A Self-Healing Framework for Reliable LLM-Based Autonomous Agents