mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ToolRobustBench: Stage-Wise Perturbation Evaluation and Failure Diagnosis for Tool-Calling Agents

arXiv 2608.23635 ↗First posted 23 Aug 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 2

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) rely on tool calling as a fundamental agent capability, enabling them to invoke external systems and complete tasks beyond text generation. However, clean end-to-end (E2E) success cannot identify where a tool-use failure originates or how it propagates through a call. We introduce ToolRobustBench, a stage-wise diagnostic benchmark for tool-calling agents, where a tool-calling agent is an LLM system that selects a tool, supplies structured arguments, and interprets its returned feedback. ToolRobustBench aligns four perturbation families with the tool-use pipeline: tool-interface, user-intent, tool-output/observation, and runtime-environment perturbations. It attributes failures to tool selection, schema grounding, argument binding, tool-output/runtime-feedback handling, and E2E task success. Experiments on 15,456 single-family instances across 7 models, 16 sampled local tools, 4 perturbation families, and 14 subtypes show high but non-uniform clean performance and substantial robustness degradation, with tool-output/observation perturbation the dominant bottleneck. Mixed-family experiments reveal non-additive failure patterns that are not explained by isolated single-family results. Thus, ToolRobustBench provides a deterministic and cascade-aware benchmark for diagnosing robustness beyond clean tool-calling accuracy;

Key facts. Cited by 2 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 9 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2026.

Builds on

9 of 14 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024RoTBench: A Multi-Level Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models in Tool Learning16 Jan
  2. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs31 Jul
  3. 2023ToolAlpaca: Generalized Tool Learning for Language Models with 3000 Simulated Cases8 Jun
  4. 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs24 May

Other references · 5

  1. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  2. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
  3. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
  4. 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 272
  5. 2026AgentNoiseBench: Benchmarking Robustness of Tool-Using LLM Agents Under Noisy Conditioncited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ToolFailBench: Diagnosing Tool-Use Failures in LLM Agents
  2. 2026Calibration is the Bottleneck: An Action-Class Diagnostic of Multi-Turn Tool-Calling
  3. 2026Beyond Function Calling: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents under Tool-Environment Unreliability
  4. 2026ToolMenuBench: Benchmarking Tool-Menu Filtering Strategies for Reliable and Efficient LLM Agents
  5. 2026How Consistent Are LLM Agents? Measuring Behavioral Reproducibility in Multi-Step Tool-Calling Pipelines
  6. 2026Benchmarking the Benchmarks: A Validity Audit of Tool-Calling Evaluation
  7. 2026AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents
  8. 2025Butterfly Effects in Toolchains: A Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Parameter Filling in LLM Tool-Agent Systems