# Robustness Analysis of Agentic AI to Inconsistent and Incomplete Tool Responses

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22676 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.22676/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 11 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

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

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02691/) (2024)
- [The Landscape of Agentic Reinforcement Learning for LLMs: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.02547/) (2025)
- [Reducing Tool Hallucination via Reliability Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.04141/) (2024)
- [ToolBeHonest: A Multi-level Hallucination Diagnostic Benchmark for Tool-Augmented Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.20015/) (2024)
- [AgentNoiseBench: Benchmarking Robustness of Tool-Using LLM Agents Under Noisy Condition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11348/) (2026)
- [Learning to Act under Noise: Enhancing Agent Robustness via Noisy Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27209/) (2026)
- [Estimator: An Effective and Scalable Framework for Transportation Mode Classification over Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.05502/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-using agents increasingly rely on external tools to complete multi-step tasks, but tool returns can fail in different ways and require different recovery actions. Existing robustness studies often use uncertainty-based measures to detect when an agent becomes unreliable. These measures can reveal that something has gone wrong, but they do not directly identify the type of tool failure or the appropriate response. We address this limitation by analyzing tool failures at the moment a return enters the agent context. Our approach combines two complementary signals. The first compares the likelihood of the returned content under the tool schema and under the full trajectory prefix. The second measures the agent's probability distribution over its legal next actions. We evaluate the approach by injecting incomplete and inconsistent returns into a retail customer-service benchmark. The results show that likelihood-based signals clearly capture incomplete returns and some direct inconsistencies, while action-based signals reveal how strongly a failure changes the next decision. Some failures that are weak under likelihood signals can still redirect the agent toward state-changing actions. These findings show that tool failures can be recognized at the return boundary, but reliable diagnosis requires combining multiple signals.