# Is Bash All You Need? An Empirical Study of Tool Interfaces for Enterprise Digital Worker Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11999 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.11999/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 21 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (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)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.12588/) (2022)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [Executable Code Actions Elicit Better LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01030/) (2024)
- [Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01489/) (2024)
- [WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07718/) (2024)
- [TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14161/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models as Tool Makers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17126/) (2023)
- [OS-Copilot: Towards Generalist Computer Agents with Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07456/) (2024)
- [An LLM Compiler for Parallel Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04511/) (2023)
- [Live-SWE-agent: Can Software Engineering Agents Self-Evolve on the Fly?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.13646/) (2025)
- [TroVE: Inducing Verifiable and Efficient Toolboxes for Solving Programmatic Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12869/) (2024)
- [APEX-Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.14242/) (2026)
- [Advanced Tool Learning and Selection System (ATLASS): A Closed-Loop Framework Using LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10071/) (2025)
- [LLM-as-Code: Agentic Programming for Agent Harness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15874/) (2026)
- [The Bitter Lesson of Tool Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.06370/) (2026)

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

- [ControlScope: Workflow Revision and Reliability in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.34313/) (2026)
- [Growing an Agent/Prover Interface: Evolutionary Tool Design for Cost-Efficient Theorem Proving in Rocq and Lean](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39544/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In this study, we examine whether a general shell can outperform specialized tools on enterprise tasks. Shell-based agents have shown strong results in coding, but enterprise work also involves moving between applications and services, coordinating with coworkers, and performing professional analysis. We compare five tool interfaces on TheAgentCompany and APEX-Agents using Opus-4.8 and GPT-5.5: typed tools, typed tools plus bash, bash alone, bash with persistent agent-synthesized tools, and programmatic tool calling (PTC), which runs programs whose actions are restricted to a typed tool catalog. Bash alone outperforms typed tools on both benchmarks, improving score by 21.8-24.5 pp on TheAgentCompany and 4.8-7.4 pp on APEX-Agents while using 19-72% fewer total tokens. Adding typed tools or persistent tool synthesis to bash produces no detectable pooled score gain. PTC uses fewer tokens than direct typed calls with broadly similar task performance, but generally underperforms bash alone in both quality and cost efficiency. For enterprise practitioners, these results favor bash alone when arbitrary execution can be isolated and PTC when security or compliance policies require a fixed tool catalog.