SEAD: A State-Based Perspective on Attack and Defense in Tool-Using Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Language-model agents increasingly use tools to act on external systems. Earlier actions can alter files, permissions, database records, or other state, making a later routine-looking action harmful. Yet the visible interaction may not reveal the underlying state needed to assess that action. We formulate attack and defense as partially observed state control in SEAD, deriving their design requirements from this shared execution process. Because attackers supply instructions while the target chooses concrete actions, DART decomposes harmful goals into locally plausible steps and uses feedback from actual tool execution to guide trajectory search. The defender must decide before execution with incomplete state evidence. SAGE can therefore investigate relevant state through read-only queries before allowing or blocking each action, including those proposed after a block. We construct an environment-verifiable dataset integrating controlled initial states, replayable tool environments, and task-specific executable checks. Across four target models, DART improves semantic attack success by 18.8--35.9 percentage points over the competing baseline, with consistent gains under executable verification. On recorded trajectories, SAGE preserves 95.79% of benign trajectories while intercepting 92.73% of harmful paths by the harm-enabling boundary. In online attack-defense evaluation, it reduces DART's executable attack success from 48.0% to 4.0%. SAGE remains effective across four attack methods and generalizes to out-of-domain environments. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/EverywhereSafety/SEAD.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 22 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.
Builds on
22 of 29 references.
Closest ancestors · 18
Same direction, newest first
- 2026StepGuard: Learning Step-Level Guardrails with Scalable Supervision and Safety-Utility Balancing25 Aug
- 2026SafeMCP: Proactive Power Regulation for LLM Agent Defense via Environment-Grounded Look-Ahead Reasoning1 Jun
- 2026TRACE: Task-Aware Adaptive Self-Evolving Agentic Jailbreaking29 May
- 2026AIRGuard: Guarding Agent Actions with Runtime Authority Control27 May
- 2026AgentHazard: A Benchmark for Evaluating Harmful Behavior in Computer-Use Agents3 Apr
- 2026AttriGuard: Defeating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Causal Attribution of Tool Invocations11 Mar
- 2026AgentLAB: Benchmarking LLM Agents against Long-Horizon Attacks18 Feb
- 2026Unsafer in Many Turns: Benchmarking and Defending Multi-Turn Safety Risks in Tool-Using Agents13 Feb
- 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedback15 Jan
- 2025Building a Foundational Guardrail for General Agentic Systems via Synthetic Data10 Oct
- 2025STAC: When Innocent Tools Form Dangerous Chains for LLM Agents30 Sep
- 2025OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety8 Jul
6 more
- 2025ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning26 Mar
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
- 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
- 2024GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoning13 Jun
- 2024R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agents18 Jan
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep
Other references · 4
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2025The Trojan Knowledge: Bypassing Commercial LLM Guardrails via Harmless Prompt Weaving and Adaptive Tree Searchcited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Boundary-State Control for Tool-Using Language-Model Agents: Commit-Time Consistency under State Drift
- 2026Tool Specifications Matter: Uncovering and Mitigating Safety Risks in AI Agents
- 2026When Tool Outputs Become Commands: Separating Action Induction from Runtime Authorization in Tool-Augmented LLM Agents
- 2026ElephantAgent: Contextual State Continuity in Agentic Systems
- 2026Think Twice Before You Act: Protecting LLM Agents Against Tool Description Poisoning via Isolated Planning
- 2026SafeClawBench: Separating Semantic, Audit-Evidence, and Sandbox Harm in Tool-Using LLM Agents
- 2026Agent Safety From Within: Detecting Harmful Trajectories from LLM Internal States
- 2026Environment Steering: Using Data Flow Control to Improve Agent Utility and Safety