Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents

Tool-using agents fail two ways: choosing the wrong tool, or forming wrong arguments, and an early failure of either kind can silently corrupt everything downstream. We measure a correct-invocation rate that separates the two, under both a clean teacher-forced context and the model's own free-running context, on five open-weight models over contamination-free multi-step tasks (depths 1-8). By depth 6, roughly 70% of a model's own clean-context capability is lost to its own earlier mistakes (L6 = 0.686, 0.684). Our central finding concerns the measurement itself. Under exact-match scoring against a fixed gold trajectory, a propagation model's severity and recovery parameters are not merely hard to estimate - they are fixed by the scoring rule. Severity is forced to its boundary (0 of 869 poisoned steps correct); recovery is structurally unobservable (0 of 580 poisoned steps returned on-track, against an expected 0.0058 by chance). Both follow from one mechanism: post-divergence, the gold value is generated by tool constants the model never sees, so it is information the model cannot derive. A fit run anyway returns 0.92 and 0.73 for a quantity that is exactly 1.000 - confident numbers for a parameter the scoring rule already determined. We give the mechanism and a remedy, conditional-on-state scoring, applied retrospectively to cached completions at zero additional cost, which un-pins severity to interior estimates excluding zero (+0.149, +0.316).