Silent Failures in Agent-Tool Interaction: An Audit of ToolUniverse
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Agentic AI systems are increasingly adopting automated pipelines that integrate multiple tools. While prior research and benchmarks have studied about task success and task completion of these agentic systems, the research about agent to tool interaction, specifically in biology agentic workflow is limited. This study investigates specific failures in agent to tool interaction where a tool invocation appears successful, some or all of the information or functionality from the tool via API/ wrapper is incomplete or missing and there are no communications / notifications to the user or the agent about such missing information. We call this a silent failures as the user or the agents are not aware that such failure has occurred. For the purposes of this study we developed an audit mechanism to identify such silent failures in Agent to tool interaction, by examining 15 scientific tools (and their associated API documentation and tool documentations) integrated within ToolUniverse environment (ToolUniverse serves as our experimental environment rather than the object of the study itself). We structure our study around 7 failure locus characterising where the failure occurs in the chain. We observed 91 failures (manually validated post LLM based candidate discovery and automated testing), most frequent of them being missing data or fields and inconsistencies in search, filtering or ranking criteria. Most of the 91 failures occurred in API layer (51) or wrapper layer (25), with a potential of silent failure amplification downstream. The results show that silent failures originate upstream of the event and propagate downstream into apparently valid scientific outputs. We propose a concept of contextual reliability to handle such failures and suggest mechanisms for testing, disclosing, monitoring, and measuring such failures across the agent-tool interaction pipeline.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Sep 2026.
Builds on
8 of 37 references.
References · 8
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,880
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2026ToolFailBench: Diagnosing Tool-Use Failures in LLM Agentscited by 8
- 2023Microservice API Evolution in Practice: A Study on Strategies and Challengescited by 7
- 2013Scientific Workflows and Provenance: Introduction and Research Opportunitiescited by 1
- 2026The Age of AI Agents Demands A New Scientific Paradigm To Sustain Trustworthy Sciencecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026When Tool Calls Succeed but Workflows Fail: Anomalies at the Agent-Tool Boundary
- 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
- 2026AgentCollabBench: Diagnosing When Good Agents Make Bad Collaborators
- 2026ToolMisuseBench: An Offline Deterministic Benchmark for Tool Misuse and Recovery in Agentic Systems
- 2026Do Agents Know What They Can't Do? Evaluating Feasibility Awareness in Tool-Using Agents
- 2026Evaluating Tool Cloning in Agentic-AI Ecosystems
- 2026AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories
- 2026Beyond Function Calling: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents under Tool-Environment Unreliability