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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23635 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.23635/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## 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, 9 of 9)

- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15334/) (2023)
- [ToolAlpaca: Generalized Tool Learning for Language Models with 3000 Simulated Cases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05301/) (2023)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [RoTBench: A Multi-Level Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models in Tool Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08326/) (2024)
- [AgentNoiseBench: Benchmarking Robustness of Tool-Using LLM Agents Under Noisy Condition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11348/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [MCP Error Messages Written for Developers Hurt the Most Capable Agents Most](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.35381/) (2026)
- [When Tools Silently Lie: Evaluating and Mitigating Blind Compliance in Tool-Augmented Data Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37153/) (2026)

## 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;