# The Claws in Plain Sight: Unauthorized Context Disclosure through LLM Agent Tool Calls

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20658 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.20658/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 11 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

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

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

- [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)
- [InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02691/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17884/) (2023)
- [PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Action](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.00138/) (2024)
- [Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19793/) (2025)
- [Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00061/) (2025)
- [AirGapAgent: Protecting Privacy-Conscious Conversational Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.05175/) (2024)
- [Parasites in the Toolchain: A Large-Scale Analysis of Attacks on the MCP Ecosystem](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.06572/) (2025)
- [Clawdrain: Exploiting Tool-Calling Chains for Stealthy Token Exhaustion in OpenClaw Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00902/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents routinely construct tool-call arguments from user profiles, conversation history, retrieved documents, and prior tool results. However, legitimate access to contextual information does not imply authorization to transmit that information for every purpose or destination. We present Claw in Plain Sight, an authority- pressure attack in which task-adjacent content frames protected attributes as operationally or procedurally required, causing a model to include them in otherwise valid generated arguments. We evaluate Claw in Plain Sight using a controlled synthetic benchmark that crosses six pressure levels with four privacy-policy levels across five DeepSeek and Claude model configurations, producing 120 calls. Across the complete pressure-policy matrix, session-level disclosure rates range from 20.8% to 75.0% among the tested models. Stronger privacy instructions reduce aggregate disclosure but do not eliminate it consistently across models, showing that prompt-level policies do not provide a portable enforcement boundary. Our experiments use only synthetic profiles and capture proposed arguments locally; they measure policy-violating generation at the context-to-argument boundary, not completed network exfiltration or leakage from deployed users. These findings motivate purpose- and destination-aware inspection of generated tool arguments before execution.