# Fabrication After Tool Failure: Tool-Augmented Agents Assert Values Their Tools Did Not Return

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14758 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.14758/

## 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 35 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Sep 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, 30 of 35)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01263/) (2023)
- [The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13208/) (2024)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Making Retrieval-Augmented Language Models Robust to Irrelevant Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01558/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01431/) (2023)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20947/) (2024)
- [Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18153/) (2023)
- [AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09038/) (2025)
- [Know Your Limits: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18418/) (2024)
- [ClashEval: Quantifying the tug-of-war between an LLM's internal prior and external evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10198/) (2024)
- [FaithEval: Can Your Language Model Stay Faithful to Context, Even If "The Moon is Made of Marshmallows"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03727/) (2024)
- [Context-faithful Prompting for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11315/) (2023)
- [When2Call: When (not) to Call Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.18851/) (2025)
- [AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.10059/) (2026)
- [From Confident Closing to Silent Failure: Characterizing False Success in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.09863/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-augmented language models are evaluated on whether they reach the right answer, not on whether they report honestly when a tool fails to supply one. We isolate this post-failure decision with a benchmark of 1,024 items spanning 16 internal-system domains and eight tool-failure types, in which a tool call is enforced and the returned payload is guaranteed to be unusable. Under a deployment-style system prompt, 14.10% of responses are dishonest: the model either asserts a value the payload cannot support or declines while citing a fabricated policy or capability limit. The rate is governed almost entirely by whether the failure is signalled. When the tool returns status:error, dishonesty is absent (0.0%); when it returns status:ok with a redacted, corrupted, stale, malformed, empty or truncated value, dishonesty reaches 45.3%. The behaviour is not an artefact of our prompts: it appears under a neutral prompt (10.17%) and under the shipped prompt of every production agent framework we evaluate, reaching 24.67% under CrewAI's, and none of the nine frameworks we audit specifies what the model should do when a tool fails. Comparing prompt-level defences, we find that the operative variable is not deference to tool output but the absence of a named failure state. Appending a single sentence that requires the model to emit retrieval_status: OK or FAILED before answering reduces dishonesty from 14.10% to 0.87%, with one item of 688 worsening against 92 improving, and transfers unchanged into three foreign agent scaffolds. The emitted flag is faithful in 99.7-99.9% of declarations, giving a runtime detector that needs only a regular expression.