arXiv (OAI Expanded)
open access
Agents' Overreliance on Unreliable Tools
LLM agents use tools to access information and perform computations beyond their parametric knowledge. Existing tool-use benchmarks evaluate whether agents select and call the right tools, assuming that tool returns are reliable. However, tools can return plausible but incorrect outputs. We evaluate
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Redundant or Necessary? A Benchmark for Detecting Redundant Steps in Agent Trajectories#1354171
- AI Agent Pull Requests on GitHub: Frequency, Structure, and Merge Conflict Rates#343545
- When Simulation Lies: A Sim-to-Real Benchmark and Domain-Randomized RL Recipe for Tool-Use Agents#1297129
- VibeCheck: Assessing the Quality of LLM-Generated Unit Tests: A Multi-agent Empirical Study across Heterogeneous Repositories#1084378
- Tracking State Footprints: How Agents Can Transact#1187818
Record · ID 1257982
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive