# Trust and Task Completion in the World of Consumer AI Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.33017 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33017/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 43 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 43)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06070/) (2023)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01263/) (2023)
- [AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09024/) (2024)
- [AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18901/) (2024)
- [Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14470/) (2024)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20947/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17884/) (2023)
- [Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16416/) (2025)
- [An Illusion of Progress? Assessing the Current State of Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01382/) (2025)
- [PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Action](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.00138/) (2024)
- [ST-WebAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Safety and Trustworthiness in Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06703/) (2024)
- [SafeArena: Evaluating the Safety of Autonomous Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04957/) (2025)
- [Modeling Future Conversation Turns to Teach LLMs to Ask Clarifying Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13788/) (2024)
- [OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06134/) (2025)
- [MobileSafetyBench: Evaluating Safety of Autonomous Agents in Mobile Device Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.17520/) (2024)
- [Magentic-UI: Towards Human-in-the-loop Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.22358/) (2025)
- [Cocoa: Co-Planning and Co-Execution with AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10999/) (2024)
- [τ-Knowledge: Evaluating Conversational Agents over Unstructured Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.04370/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Action agents do things for people. They send email, spend money, and call businesses while the user is busy with something else, so a mistake can turn into an action before anyone notices. They fail their users in two ways. They break trust when they do something the user never agreed to, or hold back after the user clearly said go. And they fall short on completion when they give up on errands that turn out to be hard. Both depend heavily on the harness around the model, meaning its instructions, tools, context, and guardrails. We built an evaluation that scores trust and completion on the same runs, in a simulated world of businesses with their own websites, inboxes, and phone lines, and of people who write back. A simulated user answers the assistant's questions. Trust means that nothing happens the user did not agree to. No email goes to someone they never approved, no private detail ends up on a group thread, no money is spent past their limit, no stranger's instructions are followed, and nothing is claimed without a source. Every trap has a matched control in which acting is the right call. We use the evaluation to measure Fo, Wajo's personal assistant, against a base model with basic instructions on three foundation models, and against the Fo harness with its guardrails switched off. Fo completes 71% of the errands and keeps the user's trust on 94% of the trap runs. The base models complete 50% to 64% and keep trust on 59% to 75%. On the matched controls, Fo goes ahead slightly less often. OpenClaw, a popular open-source assistant given the same access, completes 42% of the errands it shares with Fo, against 71%, and keeps the user's trust on 74% of the shared trap runs, against 94%. Measuring trust and completion together, on the whole system rather than the model alone, is how we think action agents become safe to hand real work to.